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.
Congress

What Is A National Consensus on Space?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 7, 2013
Filed under , ,

Space Abhors a Policy Vacuum; The NRC Report and The Need for a Broad National Space Policy, Dennis Wingo
“…The above sentence in its implication says that a scientifically justifiable space program is the only means to continue its international leadership in space. This has been the underpinning of all NASA related strategic thinking for the past thirty years but is it still tenable, is it still complete to say so? It is my opinion that the answer is no and indeed it has never truly been the case and to think of space through this narrow lens is actually the reason that we have been unable to come to any kind of national consensus on space. The key word in their mandate is national consensus, not just a presidential fiat or even a consensus between the congress and the president. If we are to move forward toward a national consensus we must look beyond the scientific justifications for a space program and look at the broader aspects of national interest to underpin our reasoning.”

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

22 responses to “What Is A National Consensus on Space?”

  1. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    we must look beyond the scientific justifications for a space program and look at the broader aspects of national interest to underpin our reasoning

    Dennis,

    The above statement is key.  I think it has been true all along, but the politicians and industrialists — and unfortunately a majority of NASA senior managers — have either not realized this, or more likely, have chosen to ignore it in favor of their own best interests.  I think JFK (or one of his advisers) understood this based on the content and manner of his Rice University speech.  He was clearly talking to all Americans that day, realizing that without their cooperation and good will he would never get the support, and therefore the money and industry cooperation, that he would need to pull off the Moon landing.  His speech to Congress repeated much of the Rice U content, but was different in terms of the incentives for going to the Moon, because he was then talking to the money controllers and paranoids, and the people who could stop the whole thing.

    Today we are clearly in a time when most of the public doesn’t know and doesn’t care about the space program or NASA.  That lack of interest, and therefore lack of support, I think, is what has given Congress a free hand to do, or not do, whatever they feel like, solely for their own reasons.  Since their constituents generally don’t care about space, Congress effectively has no one that they have to answer to, i.e., no accountability for their decisions and mandates about the space program.  Representative government?  They’re representing only themselves, and probably laughing at Joe Public and his neighbors as a consequence.

    However, the basic problem still remains — how do we interest and engage the general public in space?  Writing one’s elected representatives might make a difference (or might be a complete waste of time), but it would have to be done on a large enough scale that we’re right back to the question of how to engage many thousands of people.  NASA’s public outreach has been completely ineffectual, and the space advocacy societies are little more than country clubs for the already converted.

    At the heart of this, as you’ve stated, is the “broader aspects of national interest“.  But how, exactly, do we define that?  What are the “interests” in question.  To date, attempts to “sell” space have been based around “here’s what we’ll get if we do it.”  Unfortunately, the “good things” typically listed, while they may be of benefit to Joe Public, are of little interest or meaning to him.  Therefore this approach always fails.  Perhaps we’d be more successful approaching it from the perspective of “what’s in it for me?” and/or “what are the negative consequences to everybody if we don’t?”.  But they’d still have to be “reasons” that Joe Public would both understand and care about, which is a tough challenge.  The asteroid-wiping-out-all-life-on-Earth threat is real and obvious, but how many people take it seriously?; how many could care less?

    Whether it’s positive or negative, we still need to find some easily-understood, strong incentive that’s common to us and Joe Public before we’ll ever get a meaningful National Consensus.  Perhaps an even harder question is, Who is to take the lead in determining and presenting a National Consensus?  We’ve seen repeatedly that NRC does not have people with the necessary mind set.  So, who will lead us forth?

    Steve

    • Michael Reynolds says:
      0
      0

      I agree whole heartedly with everything you say. Especially the part about writing congressmen/politicians. As useles as it feels (I have written well over 100 letters to various politicians including the POTUS).

      Ultimately the hardest part about presenting to joe public what is in their best interest in regards to space is the amount of time for this type of investment. Specifically in a world where all our investments tend to be short term, short minded, and instant gratification fiascos. Investment in anything (time, energy, resources, etc.) in space is near impossible because of the long term nature that comes with it. That is why I believe SpaceX and Elon Musk (I am a fan but not fanatic) succeeds so well in this respect. He presents a series of products and goals that not only are cheap but fit within a reasonable time span.

      Honestly I believe the best way to get the public on board is to focus on the more open minded and curious (the youth demgraphic). The best way with them has been in the use of media such as books, movies and video games. At least that is where I started.

      In any case that is my two cents.

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      Today we are clearly in a time when most of the public doesn’t know and doesn’t care about the space program or NASA. 

      You know I completely disagree with this.  I was at Moffett Field when tens of thousands of people were there just to see the Shuttle fly over.  Everywhere the Shuttle went thousands to tens of thousands of people came just to see it pass by.  I think that the American people love space, just not in a way that is quantifiable in these stupid polls that are done.

      The American people want to see the Starship Enterprise and they want to see our nation moving in that direction.  I talk to people in non space arenas all the time and they want us to lead.  It is our failing in leadership that is helping to leave our entire nation adrift.

      Space is the answer to energy, resources, environmental degradation, and building a sustainable world.  In microcosim the problems that we have building a Lunar or Mars base echo the problems we have here on the earth in macrocosm.

      We have the incentive, Joe public understands it far better than most people in leadership do, we just have to get over the fears of being tarred and feathered like Gingrich was in the last election.  

      • Helen Simpson says:
        0
        0

         “I think that the American people love space, just not in a way that is quantifiable in these stupid polls that are done.”

        That’s sort of a problem, don’t you think? We’d like to believe that the American people “love space”, but we don’t have any way of making that sentiment show up in our stupid polling. The American people seem to have no way of expressing how they love it. Those thousand people you saw at Moffett were out there for an “event” as much as they were out there to show support for space. You need to listen to people’s words more than you need to watch where their eyes are pointed.

        Look, space is cool. It’s exciting, it’s enervating. It’s also not obviously important. Please don’t confuse the latter with the former. That Joe Public understands it far better than most people in leadership do sure isn’t saying much.

        Hollywood is exciting and enervating too. It’s probably even “inspiring”. But the national need that it fills is at an entertainment level. That’s why your American public wants to see the Starship Enterprise. They just don’t want to pay any more for it than an admission ticket.

        I too talk to people all the time who are excited about space. I just don’t take that as in an indication that they’re representative of the American public. If anything, they see space through Apollo/cold war glasses. They don’t give a crap about “exploring”, but rather about national chest beating. In fact, that’s precisely what “exploration” means to them.

        The NRC committee was asked to establish whether NASA has some picture about where it wants to go, with regard to human space flight. They clearly don’t. But that’s less a question for NASA, and more a question for the nation as a whole. It’s a shame that NASA can’t offer some good suggestions to the nation, but they’re an implementation agency, and not a policy shop.

        Sorry, but this is just handwaving. Handwaving is fun, and it’s exciting, but it’s just handwaving. Where’s the beef?

        • Denniswingo says:
          0
          0

          but we don’t have any way of making that sentiment show up in our stupid polling.

          My proof is the number of people who showed up to see the retirement of the Shuttle and additionally the number of people who showed up at 10:00 at night to see Curiosity land.  It was far more than what showed up to see Pathfinder land in 1997.

          As I said before, I talk to people all the time that have nothing to do with the space industry, including those actively opposed to it.  

          The NRC committee was asked to establish whether NASA has some picture about where it wants to go, 

          No, no, and hell no.  Read my part one for what their mandate was, it was not that at all.  Read the NRC report.  This is what it says…

          …..Notably, the committee was not asked to deliberate on what should be NASA’s goals, objectives, and strategy; rather, it was asked for recommendations on how these goals, objectives, and strategy might best be established and communicated…..

          My entire post is in the spirit of this mandate and to show how NASA’s strategic goals, objectives, and strategy can ONLY be established within the context of a larger national strategy in space.

          Sorry, but this is just handwaving. Handwaving is fun, and it’s exciting, but it’s just handwaving. Where’s the beef?

          Oh horsepucky Helen.  Why don’t you take some time and read the essays in Toward a Spacepower Theory.  

          If this is handwaving, it is the same handwaving that underpinned the intellectual and moral basis for the national strategy that got the Panama Canal built.  Understand that NASA is only one component of a larger national interest.  

          • Helen Simpson says:
            0
            0

            Yes, yes, and hell yes, Mr. Wingo. I really don’t need to read your essay to understand what they were chartered to do. It’s right here …

            http://sites.nationalacadem

            and the first task they were assigned was to “Consider the strategic direction of the agency as set forth most recently in 2011 NASA Strategic Plan and other relevant statements of space policy issued by the President of the United States.”

            Another task was to “Assess the relevance of NASA’s strategic direction and goals to achieving national priorities.”

            They find that NASA faces serious challenges in strategic direction, and conclude that “these challenges largely stem from a lack of consensus on the scope of NASA’s broad missions for the nation’s future.” That is to say, their strategic direction doesn’t cleanly relate to national goals.

            So although your essay, as you say, was to “show how NASA’s strategic goals, objectives, and strategy can ONLY be established within the context of a larger national strategy in space”,  that’s essentially what the committee was TOLD. They were told to assess NASA’s strategy on the basis of the nation’s future.

            What you’re doing is painting a picture for national benefit that relies on resources and resource development strategies that are entirely unproven. That’s why it’s handwaving. I admire your handwaving and, as I said, handwaving is fun, but that’s what it is. It isn’t well enough understood to be a national goal, which is precisely why it isn’t. As to the Panama Canal, canals were pretty well understood and proven when that one was commissioned. A poor example.

            As to your proof of the public love of space, the landing of Curiosity was an event. It was one the public had already paid for. Their presence was a cheap thrill (cheap in that it was a few hours out of their evening), as opposed to any kind of real expression of future fiscal or even intellectual commitment. Would they have spent the same number of hours phoning their legislators, or writing letters to the newspaper? Did they go home and do that? I really doubt it. Again, look at their words, and not where their eyes are.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            development strategies that are entirely unproven. 

            Yep, guilty as charged.  The Panama Canal was unproven, until it was built. It was even forecast that the malaria would kill the Americans just like it did the French and doom the effort to failure.  Until we cured the mosquito problem and built the canal.

            The National Railroad was unproven and said to be impossible before it was proven.

            For that matter crossing the ocean was unproven and the majority of the scientific minds and political leaders of the era said it either could not be done, or that you would fall off the edge of the earth.  Until It was done, opening up a new world and helping to usher in the modern age.

             It isn’t well enough understood to be a national goal, which is precisely why it isn’t. 

            That is why I write, to help bring this understanding.  Others are as well and it was a guy named Von Braun that, through his writing and coupling with Disney that brought it to the American people’s understanding.

            As to the Panama Canal, canals were pretty well understood and proven when that one was commissioned. A poor example.

            You have got to be kidding me, do you see the flaw in your logic?  It was proven because they did it and thus it was proven?  

            Canals were indeed understood, and yet the team that had built the Suez canal (the French) could not do it, they failed. The Columbian government would not even allow the Americans to start building one, so our president helped foment a revolution, created a new country, and got it done.

            Do we teach so little history in this country anymore that this is what passes for an understanding of the challenges of the past and how they were overcome?

            We do know now, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what the minimum resource base is on the Moon from our Apollo samples. That money was well spent for that hard won ground truth.  We know that there is a massive upside to that resource base from recent remote sensing missions.  We know from many experiments how to render that material into oxygen and metals.  We know a lot about the resource base of Mars now as well.  These are all facts.  We add to this our massive technological advances even of the last decade with the growing prevalence of robots, the emerging colossus of 3D printing technology, and power systems and we have retired a great deal of the risk of the industrial development of the solar system.

            It would be amusing if your perspective was a minority one and that is why we do these things, write these articles, build these robotic systems, to show how this can unfold.  To say that since we have not done it that we can’t do it and that what we talk about is unproven because we haven proven it touches on some deep part of the human psyche that  must be overcome if we are to make progress in our society.  

            Look around you Helen, read the writings of those that would descope industrial civilization because of unwarranted fears of resource depletion.  Read the writings of those who claim that AIDS is a blessing because it removes humans who would otherwise foul the planet, understand that by discounting the only true solution to these issues that you default to their solution sets.

            That is why we fight, we fight for the future…of all mankind…

        • Denniswingo says:
          0
          0

          Yet another space poll that shows the popularity of NASA.

          http://io9.com/5983454/most

      • Mark_Flagler says:
        0
        0

        I broadly agree with Dennis. Space is the answer to all the things he mentioned. However, building a national consensus on US space policy feels like trying to build bridges out of Jello.

        One problem with a consensus (as endorsed by government) is the dreadful lack of Congressional understanding. Congress is either preoccupied with narrow, earthbound agendas, blind to the opportunity space offers, or worse, contains members like Rep. Paul Broun, who believe that science (and the good, wealth, and commerce that follow from science) originates in “the pit of hell.” Why should NASA have to justify anything before people as misguided as that? And this is before the pork barrels are cracked open. It’s hard to see how NASA can put forward a plan and win agreement in such an environment; indeed, because of its roots in science and technology, NASA is, in fact, seen as an ideological enemy by many Congressmen.

        Another issue lies in how we as a people think of space and write about it; usually it’s in terms of science or exploration. I believe it would be helpful to speak more in terms of exploitation.

        Commerce has followed the flag into space for sixty years with GPS, recon, communications, weather, broadcast, resource-mapping satellites, and other applications. Yet most public discourse speaks in terms of exploration (which suggests expense) and science (which fails to interest many people).

        While we need not abandon such things, we should be thinking in terms of exploiting space and celestial bodies for our benefit; both business and humanity would profit. If we began thinking in terms of exploitation, science and exploration become natural parts of a larger effort, and the return on our investment in space becomes more visible, encouraging further investment.

        We also need to stop the either-or argument between human and robotic missions. We need to focus on the synergy inherent in humans and robots working together. Yes, HSF is expensive, but can be hugely leveraged when combined with robotic systems, and I expect the combination could be more cost-effective than either alone.

        The Human v. Robot argument has generated more heat than light, divided space proponents into hostile camps, and wasted time and money. Both work, and given the right kind of mission, would work better in concert than either alone, especially with a focus on exploitation.

        Let’s just agree that while there will always be some operations where only automated systems (e.g., space telescopes, communications satellites, etc.) are appropriate, there are others like lunar ISRU where humans and robots would work well together making up for each other’s lacks.

        We also need to stop wrestling over commercial versus government space. We will need both to open up the inner solar system, and while there will be a division of labor between government and commercial houses, there also will be a need for both. And both will bring unique capabilities to the table.

        Finally, back to national consensus. Regardless of what most of us beyond the Beltway may think, Congress views itself as embodying national consensus. Of course, it visibly does not, but that doesn’t prevent Congressmen from thinking it. Having little or no faith in Congress after more than two generations of interference, pork barreling, and short-sighted decisions, I suspect any real national consensus will have to come from the population at large, that the various space advocacy groups will have to band together, decide where we should go, and then turn to the commercial sector to get us there. NASA could do the job, but Congress will always keep one of NASA’s feet nailed to the Earth, make sure that its budget is limited, and that much of what’s finally spent is wasted.

        It’s time to go extra-governmental in a big way, and with commercial space, we are developing the ability to do so. The next large space station won’t be a government project; it will be built by someone like Bob Bigelow and supported by commercial launchers and spacecraft. That’s the first step on the real path to space exploitation.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Steve

      I am working 68 hours a week (physical labor) with little time to read much and be part of the discussion. But I think you simple have to show Joe Q what is possible and he will eventually come around.

      Show him that life in space or on the moon or mars really possible.

      That is why I’m a Spacex fan.

      Sadly I think it’s that simple.

      SHOW ME!!!!!

      Lol

      Just George

  2. cb450sc says:
    0
    0

    I’m a little startled to see statements like:

    “For example, the optical measuring technology developed for the Webb, called “wavefront sensing” has been applied to eye health and has allowed improvements in measurement of human eyes, diagnosis of ocular diseases and potentially improved surgery.”

    when I am pretty damned sure we have been doing wavefront sensing for long before NGST was seriously conceived.

  3. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    Read the NASA act and you get a good idea of what NASA is supposed to be doing-developing and improving the systems that enable and improve  operations beyond earths surface is number 1. Enabling science: knowledge of the universe and the worlds and environment beyond earth is number 2. Communicating what is learned is number 3. 

    As far as getting a national consensus, what does that mean? The most popular things in the US today, like football or NASCAR gain the support of something under 100 million people, something less than 1/3 the population. That is measured by how many attend their events or tune in to an event on TV.  The US space program doesn’t have that many discrete events that people can attend or tune into. People can no longer attend a shuttle launch actually they haven’t been able to get closer than the other side of the causeway for 10 years. There is not that much going on in orbit today to tune into. What you think hundreds of millions should tune into a Canadian commander talking to the Star Trek commander? It might have been exciting for them…the only significant space ‘event’ in the last year was the skycrane Mars landing. 

    In the 1950s, von Braun orchestrated a magnificent campaign to gain the attention of the American populace with a series of article in a big national magazine and a series of Disney top-rated TV programs. That was in an era of no internet, distribution of magazines to tens of millions (in an era when the population was less than hundreds of millions). Disney appeared on one of the only 3 national networks. 

    As much as anything, popular opinion steered politicians to support the establishment of a space program in the 1950s. It still took an interested president and vice president, and a road map established by NASA managers, to define the plan and the program. I get a kick out of George Abbey in a recent VOA interview http://www.voanews.com/medi… telling everyone ‘well we ended Shuttle before we had anything else and layed off thousands of experienced people and those people are gone now; now we have to try and rebuild’…at the same time the new JSC director asks, what should we be doing?

    The stupidity of the NASA management in shutting down and laying off their thousands of experienced people without a wimper and not knowing what to do next is astounding to me. Are they really that incapable?  A national consensus…funny thing is most people I talk to think the program has been shut down and the budget has been reduced to nothing, even though the budget has not gone down at all. NASA and presumably thousands of workers are still in place (if the same amount of money continues to be spent I am not sure who the people are who are working if all the experienced people were laid off). One thing that is all too obvious is that no one is making much progress with that next spaceship, Orion. 

    I don’t think we need more of a national consensus than we already have; people are as supportive of the space program as they are going to get. We do need a plan that makes sense. I have not heard it. If we had a sensible plan then maybe politicians would get behind it. We do need to do a better job of educating people-remember the comments by several of he panelists in Abbey’s Lost in Space program that somehow we need to educate people about the space program; maybe we ought to use the nation’s existing academic structure? Taking a passive approach on the internet and twitter doesn’t work too well most of the time.

     

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Like so many others, you attribute the layoffs to NASA.  NASA personnel might have done the paperwork, but it was direction from President Bush in 2004 that made all of those layoffs happen when he mandated termination of the Shuttle and start of the VSE, which he then abandoned support for.  Left to themselves, I don’t think NASA managers would ever have laid off all those people.  In fact, what I’ve been told is that one problem with NASA has been that they never got rid of redundant people, except by contract endings, and often not even then.

      NASA has many problems, but don’t blame them for what wasn’t their doing.

      • Littrow says:
        0
        0

        Bush may have made the initial decision but the Augustine Committee among others reviewed the options with Obama and Holdren and one of the options placed on the table 4 years ago was to continue to fly Shuttle. Four years ago that could have been done in several ways whether extending out the time between missions or reopening assembly lines. NASA was noncommittal. NASA management did not seem to care which way the program went.  

        The Bush idea was that a replacement Crew Return Vehicle at that time probably based on the X-37 would be flying by 2009. Griffin and ESAS changed that to trying to rebuild Apollo. The Orion capsule was “safe, simple, soon”. Remember that was why they selected a known shape; known and not too sophisticated technology. That was NASA management. 

  4. SpaceHoosier says:
    0
    0

    The onus for a national concensus is on the President. Not Congress and certainly not NASA. Neither Congress, nor NASA declared that we should go to the moon, not becasue it is easy, but because it is hard, and then follow it up by pushing Congress and NASA to acheive that stated goal in the timeframe he thought was possible. 
    Only the President has the singular stage and authority (as head of the Executive branch) to make a national space policy a priority and to set a particular agenda. That takes vision. But it also takes an enormous committment to leadership and pushing Congress and NASA administrators towards that stated vision. Over the past 25 years, many Presidential declarations and space policy plans have been made. But name one President during that time that actually committed to the stated goals by pushing and prodding to get his mandates off the ground?

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      But name one President during that time that actually committed…

      Lyndon B. Johnson.  Before and after the death of JFK, Johnson was the driving force that made Mercury/Gemini/Apollo happen.  He fought for the money; he wheeled and dealed with industry (with a fairly heavy hand); and he personally convinced James Webb (an old friend) to take the NASA Administrator job, which made a big difference; among other things.

      As for the onus being on the President, you’re absolutely right, according to the Space Act legislation (I’ve made this argument several times).  However, in actual fact it doesn’t happen that way (I got the realities explained to me every time).  It seems that Congress and OMB, both and separately, don’t much care about that legislation.  They each think they’re in the driver’s seat and calling the shots, so the system breaks down because there’s no consensus within the government about who’s in charge.  I would say that this problem needs to fixed first if there’s ever to be a “national” consensus about NASA.

      • SpaceHoosier says:
        0
        0

        Steve,
        I understand the realities that Congress controls the purse strings and unless there is self-interest (pork for the congressional district folks back home) or heavy industry lobby push (money in political war chests), folks in the legislature are not going to consistantly fund or support a long term vision.

        Again, this is where POTUS has to step up and cajole, lobby or strong arm if needed, to get stuff done. This is the case for any national agenda, not just space. As you stated LBJ was the big driving force for the Kennedy mandates and ‘glory days’ of 60’s NASA. POTUS not only has to convince Congress, but the American people. Only a clear vision and leadership from him is ever going to get a national consensus.

        BTW…something for us here to chew on: Just how important is a national concensus on NASA these days? Some would argue that NASA is increasingly irrelevent as commercial space begins to open up and the national budget begins to shrink up. But that is EXACTLY why there needs to be a clear directive for NASA. Should it be a partner or take a back seat to the private sector? Should it soley focus on R&D? Is it going to continue to be the pioneer in deep space exploration? With increasngly tighter budgets, how to spend those budgets and what is priority is vital to avoid the waste and stagnation of the past few years, imho

    • Littrow says:
      0
      0

      Sorry to disagree, but while the President and Administration needs to be counted on for their support and to rally the troops, provide guidance to the Congress, get the OMB to budget the money thats required, NASA is expected to be the technical expertise when it comes to designing a space program (I understand that based on their recent performance that might be difficult to believe). 

      You go back to Apollo. Read the history. Kennedy asked Johnson, who at the time was chairman of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, and he asked Johnson, “what can we do, what can we do to win and get ahead of the Russians”. Johnson immediately turned to NASA to tell him what could NASA do that achieves a significant first in space ahead of the Russians. NASA responded and told him what they could do. Johnson provided the answer to Kennedy. Kennedy declared the moon goal.  

      • Paul Spudis says:
        0
        0

        “……Kennedy received a detailed memorandum outlining all his space options from Vice President Lyndon Johnson on April 29, 1961, but Dryden had already forcefully made his case for a lunar landing to the President two weeks earlier.  It is often thought that Wernher von Braun was the one who convinced Kennedy that the Moon was the proper goal for Apollo, but Dryden had digested and presented von Braun’s technical arguments in policy terms that Kennedy could
        understand.  In the public’s mind, von Braun was “Dr. Space,” largely because of his work with Walt Disney in
        the 1950s popularizing the idea of space travel.  But it was Hugh Dryden who helped turn the dream of landing people on the Moon into a political commitment from the President and ultimately, a reality…….”

        http://blogs.airspacemag.co

        • Littrow says:
          0
          0

          Thanks Paul. Anyway you look at it, it was NASA and space people who decided how we needed to proceed and sold the idea to the powers that controlled the country’s goals and purse strings. I really get a kick out of the people who want to place the blame on everyone  or anyone except for the NASA and space people.  We need strong space leadership. No signs of it today. 

        • Denniswingo says:
          0
          0

          Robert C. Seamans was also part of the pro lunar mission faction at NASA.  He was the deputy NASA admin and former secretary of the USAF.

          He was part of the team that reviewed the famous Rice University speech.

  5. llewis11 says:
    0
    0

    what is a national consenus on anything these days… have you noticed?