This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Exploration

Jack Schmitt's Take on Space Policy and Politics

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 8, 2012
Filed under , ,

America’s Deep Space Vision: Settlement of the Moon and Mars versus Asteroid Visits, Harrison Schmitt, The Heartland Institute
“America’s eroding geopolitical stature, highlighted by the July 21, 2011, end to flights of the United States Space Shuttle, has reached crisis proportions. Obama Administration officials now spin the nebulous thought of Astronauts flying many months to an undetermined asteroid in 2025 as an actual “National Space Policy”. On the other hand, Republican candidates for President have not yet recognized the importance of international civil space competition in the federal government’s constitutional function to provide for the nation’s “common defence”.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

16 responses to “Jack Schmitt's Take on Space Policy and Politics”

  1. Grandpa_Dave says:
    0
    0

    NASA and the DOD are fading away in order to support the Entitlement-State. Bring back the good olde days — Grandpa

  2. SpaceHoosier says:
    0
    0

    Rep. Schmitt makes some excellent points, IF you believe the premise of effectively utilizing H3 as a fusion reactor fuel source. I may be wrong, but I have yet to hear of a successful fusion reactor test (one in which you actually get more energy out than what you put in), let alone a test of a fusion reactor small enough to fly on a space craft. That said, a lunar base and testing platform seems more safe, economically viable and practical than a onetime landing on an asteroid (just because we could do it.)  For once, I would like to see a President seriously take a long look at US space exploration policy. Has there ever been a Blue-Ribbon type commission or panel entrusted with reviewing, debating and advising the President and Congress on what should be our short and long term plans?

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Plans? Did you say plans? isn’t that what nasa does? make plans???? Why most one be verses the other? Why not go very cheaply in all three directions moon mars asteroids and drag commercial along?

    • Hallie Wright says:
      0
      0

      There have been several such Blue Ribbon Committees. Probably the most recent was the 2004 Aldridge panel, formally known as the “President’s Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond”, the findings of which led to the Vision for Space Exploration. That was a smart group, but I don’t believe that they reached out to stakeholders as much as what is actually needed. The Augustine Committee took a shorter range perspective.

      The 2010 NASA Authorization bill, now public law, mandates such a new effort of review, debate, and advising by a high level committee, formed by the National Academies. It said …

      “In fiscal year 2012 the Administrator shall contract with the National Academies for a review of the goals, core capabilities, and direction of human space flight, using the goals set forth in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, the goals set forth in this Act, and goals set forth in any existing statement of space policy issued by the President.”

      My understanding is that negotiations between NASA and the NRC are ongoing.

  3. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    I agree that the “Vision” part of the Vision for Space Exploration is sound. However, Jack should have contemplated more of the Augustine Committee’s findings from 2009. NASA just doesn’t have a budget for the heavy-lift approach Dr. Schmitt advocates.  
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…. Realistic public space policy strategy needs to fit within that shrinking pie, or one must collaborate with some farsighted private investors.

  4. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    With all the respect due Jack Schmitt, editorials such as this oversimplify the situation, lending all of one paragraph to statements about funding (“A properly funded Constellation Program, would have returned Americans and their partners to the Moon…”). This is followed by the same old litanies that have failed to provide justification for proper funding since the early 1970’s and the end of the Apollo program.

    This path of trying to justify a significantly increased NASA budget has not worked in the past, and the holding out of hope there may have done more harm than good by encouraging the mistaken belief that the solution to problems always lies just around the corner. Just one more powerful, poetic, justification is needed, just one more leader willing to listen, just the right administration and vision and we’ll be there. This syndrome, represented once again so well in Schmitt’s editorial, has a flavor of messianic delivery soon to come – while in the meantime we ignore what can be done, today, on the relatively flat budgets that are not as difficult to predict as some would think.

    The NASA budget has had it’s ups and downs, yet major failings in program management have not been a result of a fluctuation down any year as much as major miscalculations about both what content will cost, made worsen by delusional budget optimism.

    It’s said by some nothing would ever get done if programs were both realistic in early budget formulation, or realistic in budget expectations. Well this is where that approach has gotten us to. Maybe once there was a way to see that logic of being optimistic, but the passage of time has merely made that approach create bigger and bigger crisis – bringing us to where we are now.

    Good leadership would see what’s around the corner, with hard nosed realism. The current administration was ready to keep funding NASA at traditional levels, but with an avenue to spurring competition so as to spur industry growth and lower costs to NASA long term. So that plausibly content and budget might match up long term through improvement, not funding. So that plausibly the justifications that really get more funding, more direct, tangible, economic, market growth could grow.

    Lets all take a look at the situation, and as leaders see how to attack it, coming out the other side successfully, through innovation and strategy, ceasing to moan and complain about the budget as an excuse for inaction.

  5. jski says:
    0
    0

    One of the most ignorant statements to come from this president was, in regards to a permanent settlement on the Moon: “we’ve done that already”.  And, I must admit, this echoed the equally ignorant conclusion from the Augustine committee.

    What could be more inspiring to generations of engineers and scientists than to look up at the largest body in the sky and think there are humans up there and I can help?

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      Except that Obama wasn’t speaking for the engineers and scientists of the world. And especially not the geeks and fanbois. He was speaking for the average voter. Another moon mission is just a repeat of a, by then, 60+ year old achievements. And I think he reflected a general perception.

      People whining about Obama’s suggested asteroid mission are doing exactly the same thing Obama did over a moonshot. They’re assuming that Joe the Plumber won’t be impressed with astronauts hanging off of rocks, therefore the program to put astronauts on a rock has no other value. Note your own second paragraph: not that a moonshot will be a “more advanced” program or a “more capable” program, but a moonshot will be a “more inspiring” program.

      Can’t we have a program which is judged by more than whether it will hold the attention of a typical American Idol watcher? Or whether it will “inspire the next generation of… fanboi nerds”. It’s all based on the fantasy that some magic vision/speech/program will gain public support, therefore congressional support, and therefore get more money for NASA for a real space program. It’s a failed model for the 50 years since Apollo. It even failed during Apollo.

      • Chris B says:
        0
        0

        In 1968-1973, we spent $5B per year to put 12 men on the moon. Under NASAs Apollo On ATK Brand Steroids plan we will spend $10B per year for a decade to put zero men on the moon, then $10B per year to put four men per year on the moon.

        Six decades, no progress.

  6. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Some thoughts on how I think we should change SLS so that maybe SLS could be a real way to the moon mars asteroids and not just a jobs program
    Tinker
    SLS
    Along with its payload, shouldn’t SLS put a big hydro tank into orbit every launch which can be used for ISS additions, habitats, safe work zones, fuel tanks?
    With 30 months to decide on strap-ons for SLS. Isn’t there still time to have those strap-ons boosters to BE recoverable oxygen tugs?
    Couldn’t the main core have an oxygen tank plus heat shield under the hydro tank making it possible to loft to orbit the hydrogen tank with the payload on top every time?
    Doesn’t this make it pretty easy to in the near future recover all oxygen tanks and all engines with shields or reverse thrust return, on every mission for a much cheaper SLS? NOTHING WASTED!
    Couldn’t there be 2 basic configurations of SLS which still include your 3 recoverable oxygen tugs?
    1 The central core has the only main Hydrogen tank over a small oxygen tug   and the strap-ons are just recoverable oxygen tugs.
    2 The straps ons each have their own hydrogen tanks making the central core hydrogen tank smaller/shorter allowing more payload to orbit. (Strap-ons and core all the same diameter)
    Tinker I see no Good reason why SLS cannot and should not be turned into a 3 oxygen tug version of your heavy lifter.
    Creating the tugs that can later be put on your big thrust frame to take people to settle MARS 25 years from now once Elon gets us there in about 20!!!!!!!
    If need be, make each one of your tugs Smaller than the tugs in your outline.
    DOESN’T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTISTT
     I think that we will go to the moon on some kind of Spacex falcon heavy program evening if the usa space program continues to do very little. That guy/Musk is going to Mars in his life time one way or the other.
    Tinker has put this heavy lifter idea out there and to me it is a good one. I think we should go back to the moon but I can’t understand why it has to cost so much starting with SLS and Orion. Sorry to be a little off subject.

  7. meekGee says:
    0
    0

    a) The asteroid mission was only a stepping stone on the way to a Mars mission, and a very reasonable one at that.  Technically, it is “a half way” mission, and scientifically, it is a worthwhile arget
    b) The “been there done that” was made in the context of choosing Moon vs. Mars.  It is just saying “we’ll set a goal that’s even higher” as opposed to “we’ll go to a place we’ve already reached”.  It was never implied that there’s nothing to do on the moon – just the our goal should be as revolutionary as the moon was in the 1960’s.

    The fact that the writer is saying the Obama’s administration goal is “asteroids and not moon-or-Mars” is interesting – it means that Mars has now shifted politically – it used to be (politically) “Moon or aseteroid-and-Mars”

  8. newpapyrus says:
    0
    0

    Manned interplanetary journeys  would still require major breakthroughs in shielding technology in order to travel several months through interplanetary space– hoping to avoid a life threatening major solar event. And there are currently no chemical rockets currently contemplated that could efficiently transport the several  hundred tonnes of mass shielding needed to protect astronauts from such dangerous events.

    A lunar base program would be substantially cheaper and easier to achieve than any  asteroid mission.  A lot more asteroids could be visited– with sample returns–  a lot more cheaply by using unmanned missions.

    Visiting a tiny asteroid with a manned crew would be  like visiting a small isolated island in the middle of the Pacific. Establishing a base on the Moon, however, is like opening up a vast new continent that could  serve as a magnet for private commercial investment and as a gateway to the rest of the solar system!

  9. Hallie Wright says:
    0
    0

    And while there are people who want to colonize the Moon, there are no governments (including that of the U.S.) that want to. You will not find such a goal in any federal policy statement. Until you do, it’s unlikely that a federal agency will expend the effort and expense to follow a space strategy that is aimed at doing so. It’s just that simple. There are plenty of policy statements about “exploration”, which is, for practical purposes, defined as going there and leaving flags and footprints.

  10. nasa817 says:
    0
    0

    We can’t afford to go back to the Moon or to Mars because we never developed the technology to make access to LEO routine.  That is the first and only thing that NASA should work on, R&D to make getting to LEO as routine as flying from LA to NYC.  Until we do that, everything else is just talk.  NASA is not capable of doing this because it is just a bloated bureaucracy of has-beens and never-weres.  A vast majority of those in NASA HSF have absolutely no experience in anything other than operating a mature flight system that is now retired.  Research, design, or development are all beyond our capability.  What we are capable of is building an operational empire around an existing system that requires 10 times more resources to operate than it should.  That is the legacy of the Shuttle program.  What we should have done was evolve the Shuttle to improve safety and flexibility and to get the cost down, but instead we bloated the workforce with tens of thousands of unnecessary jobs to make it too difficult to cancel.  That didn’t work, it got cancelled, and it cost us the space program.

    All this BS about colonizing the Moon is just stupid.  Manufacturing on the Moon would cost 10,000 times more than here on Earth.  Every pound to the lunar surface would cost at least $1M.  It would take a million pounds of hardware to have any capability on the surface.  We just don’t have $1 trillion to do this.  Of course we spend that much every year on defense-related spending or social programs, these are our national priorities, not space.  Space was the priority of our generation, not this one.  The public could not care less about space.  When we fall behind, which will take at least until 2050, then it will become a priority.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Most of what said is why say over and over Elon and Spacex are the critical path to mars. I have thought about saying that NASA should do r and d to make recoverable boosters. But thought better of it. They would just milk it and it would take longer.
      Goal
      make man a multiple planet species

      Plan
      Build falcon 1
      Build falcon 9
      Make capsule that can land on any rock
      Make boosters recoverable
      Build a cheaper heavy lift