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

America's Space Policy Needs A Guiding Vision

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 27, 2013
Filed under , ,

“Where, Why and How?” – Concerns of the House Subcommittee on Space, Paul Spudis
“I found that there is confusion and even some anger on the Hill over President Obama’s decision to abandon the Moon as the near-term goal of human spaceflight. Additionally, there is widespread puzzlement about the newly minted, asteroid retrieval concept – whether it will accomplish any scientific benefits, if it will prepare us for human missions beyond LEO, and what societal value it may or may not have. The question before the committee was how we might best move forward in space. As the discussion proceeded, it was patently clear that we desperately need a guiding vision with a strategic direction, one that constantly, incrementally and cost effectively creates and extends our space capabilities. It requires a plan with abundant milestones, intermediate in time and money, which will move humans beyond low Earth orbit.”
Where Do We Go Next In Space?, Earlier post

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

23 responses to “America's Space Policy Needs A Guiding Vision”

  1. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    They’re trying to find something to use the SLS for, so they won’t have to cancel it and pay god knows how much money in charges for early termination of the contracts (never mind the reaction in Florida and its space-related jobs).

    We’ve had tons of guiding missions over the past two decades. What we need is some actual commitment to not kill a program, or else we need to seriously consider moving everything to 4-8 year time tables in order to avoid the program getting nuked by new incoming Presidents.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      Weirdly, I suspect that if NASA built whole programs around 4-8 year limits, they might find they accidentally develop a genuine long term plan as well. Thinking in terms of discrete stepping stones with finite goals and realistic budgets, instead of vague 30 year out wishful thinking.

      • TheBrett says:
        0
        0

        That’s what I’m thinking as well. Each increment might become something that Congress would be reluctant to cancel. And even if they did, we might have something to carry over.

    • JParsons says:
      0
      0

      Unfortunately the 4 to 8 year time frame is what’s needed. Whats sad is given House terms of 2 years maybe we should take that into account.. America does not have stomach for long term projects in space anymore. We’d better train our astronauts to speak Chinese because they seem to have government that can sustain long term projects.

      • MattW2 says:
        0
        0

        We have never had the stomach for long-term space projects. Landing on the moon was eight years from concept to execution. Space shuttle was seven from program approval to planned first flight. I suppose you could make the case that the space station has received long-term but low-level support.

        • JParsons says:
          0
          0

          Yes it took eight years to go to the moon and men have never been back since Nixon ended the program. The the big goal Mars is out of the question. Plus it will be long after I’m gone that we will have put 100 people who have been to the or in orbit around the moon.

        • TheBrett says:
          0
          0

          With the space station, it probably helped that it was an international program, and that it was easier to sell continuing funding for it once large parts of it were actually up there (particularly since it also gave an excuse to continue Shuttle missions for a longer period of time).

          • mfwright says:
            0
            0

            There was the Shawcross recommendation to stop Shuttle and pull out of ISS after Columbia disaster in 2003. But that would have not been good with our international partners on ISS.

      • TheBrett says:
        0
        0

        I think you can come up with missions that can be completed in 4-8 years, that are valuable in their own right even if the greater project gets re-defined away. And as Paul451 says, get a few of those and they might add up to a long-term mission, particularly if they survive. It doesn’t do us any good to get invested in missions where their chance of political survival is too low (like 20-30 year time frames).

  2. LPHartswick says:
    0
    0

    I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Spudis. Now all we have to do is convince those august servants of the people…good luck.

  3. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    I suspect that adopting a 4-8-year approach would only make for slight improvement. The root problem, I fear, is still the fact that the various groups involved (several power groups plus the public), each has its own goal(s), and no two groups have the same goals. It’s like 5 or 6 people have jumped into a car, ready and willing to go, but each one is determined to go somewhere different from all of the others — the net result is that they all just sit there all day, with nobody going anywhere.

    This problem is made more complicated by the fact that when various parties discuss (argue) their positions, they do so with little or no actual detail about what they’re arguing for. It’s all generalities. We should be going to Mars; no, we should be going to the Moon first; for the purpose of doing …? If you can’t tell me exactly what you want to do when/if you get to [your destination], then I can’t possibly tell you if I think it’s a good idea or what advantages/road blocks are involved. And no one can begin to tell you what it all will really cost. So any program that is begun is so full of holes and wrong answers that it can’t possibly proceed according to its schedule or budget, and we see history repeated once again.

    Going anywhere only for the sake of going, or doing anything only for the sake of doing it, is foolish. And an informed decision can only be made about anywhere or anything if all of the necessary details are provided, which hasn’t been the case. For example, talking about building a lunar base is not enough. There are endless decisions, trade-offs and requirements about it that need to be decided and communicated before any analysis or refinement can even begin, let alone be finalized. And only once that is done can we begin planning and costing. And experience tells us that this is an iterative process which we may have to cycle through many times before finalizing decisions and plans. Quite likely, there are people out there who have worked out all the details, and even refined them to their optimum (with respect to his/her goals), but those details don’t appear to be in evidence when all of the subcommitte meeting, public presentations, news releases, blogs, society meetings, etc. take place. People end up arguing for or against a generality.

    I’m afraid that there’s much more to be “fixed” than just the program durations to get the space program out of the rut it’s been in for so long. I wish things were simpler, but I’m convinced they’re not.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      “Going anywhere only for the sake of going, or doing anything only for the sake of doing it, is foolish.”

      Isn’t exploration it’s own reward? Could be payoffs in future, to be sure, but the initial thrusts are curiosity driven?

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Curiosity is a factor, I suspect even the root factor, but there still needs to be goal-driven ratinoale for any mission. You might wander around downtown in a city you’re visiting with no fixed plan, just to see what there is to see, but the costs and times involved in space exploration don’t allow the same approach. When there are so many places to go, choosing one involves selling your plan to the money people (and, in theory, to the public). If all of that money and time is going to be spent then there has to be reasonable expectation of achieving specified goals.

  4. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    That might actually work to our advantage, though. Congress seems more inclined to give existing, complete missions with hardware continuing funding than to continue to fund projects in development. Witness the prolongation of various unmanned missions, along with the prolongation of support for the Shuttle and ISS missions.

    Granted, there’s been some longer term missions that do get funding (like said ISS and various unmanned missions) in development over a longer time frame, but it’s still a gamble. Aside from the ISS, it’s been incredibly difficult to get a new manned space program completed for at least 30 years.

  5. Nassau Goi says:
    0
    0

    The truth that nobody likes to admit is that this congress is bought. They will do not do anything without big financial interests at stake. These congressional committee and sub committee meetings often amount to little more than show.

    I’m convinced in our current economic system the only way that manned spaceflight will be advanced will be through commercial led endeavors, perhaps with government support. Big corporations and big money make things happen. It is the same reason ATK is still involved with SLS and why they spend heavily on lobbying. It matters little about the results and practicality, as long as a profit is foreseen. Big money is driving this. ATK could care less if their boosters aren’t right for NASA from a technical and practical standpoint.

    The ideals of exploring the solar system, moon or an asteroid come secondary to profits and subsequent campaign funding with this congress and that is the bottom line. We’d all love to believe differently and congress will strive to convince you of that despite their actions.

    • Andrew Sexton says:
      0
      0

      I strongly agree with your comment on “commerical led endeavors.” Space activites will truly grow only when someone finds a way to monetize the activities in a commercial way. At that point, someone who has THIER money at risk, will be making the decisions and will be able to maintain a vision of what they are doing for more than a few years. The commercial pull will be guiding light in the end.

  6. 2004MN4 says:
    0
    0

    “Additionally, there is widespread puzzlement about the newly minted, asteroid retrieval concept – whether it will accomplish any scientific benefits” Umm… what are the scientific benefits of manned Moon or Mars missions? Yes, the asteroid retrieval mission has way less science per dollar value than a robotic Discovery class mission, but it has way more science per dollar than a manned spaceflight return to the Moon. The asteroid retrieval mission is at least an order of magnitude cheaper than manned return to the Moon. It’s like NASA’s found a great deal on a Ford Fiesta and the Moonies are saying they won’t drive it because they’d rather have a Bentley. …oh yeah, and a SEP tug based on the asteroid retrieval mission spacecraft could make later lunar lander mission cheaper by hauling up heavy stuff to the Moon… maybe even a reusable Lunar lander… but hey, who am I to let engineering sense to get in the way of a good holy war. Let’s keep on fighting about stuff that the general public could care less about, and that no one in DC has money to pay for… ‘cuz it’s not like they are going to decide to spend the money on something else while we’re busy having heated debates on what to do next when we somehow get Apollo sized budgets again.

  7. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    The first destination on our second set of voyages beyond LEO must be the surface of the moon.

    Lewis and Clark didn’t take the easy path. Do we want the next Lewis and Clark
    to be from China ?

    Do we want the next Transcontinental Rail Road to be built by those outside the
    US ?

    Quit whining about how hard a lunar lander is. Use some innovation and get this done. If some innovation is needed then fnd it.

  8. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    we desperately need a guiding vision with a strategic direction

    I’m sorry to be negative, but this vision business is getting old. Although he doesn’t specifically say it, the inference in the blog is that there currently is no vision. This is something that seems to be common among people in almost every group related to space — if the current “vision” is not something that a given person wants then he/she claims that there is no vision. I really don’t understand why this happens so much.

  9. Richard H. Shores says:
    0
    0

    I agree with Mr. Spudis. Unfortunately, we have people with their heads stuck in the sand.

  10. CadetOne says:
    0
    0

    In general I agree with Paul Spudis; although, sometimes for different reasons.

    I think the Moon should be the first target instead of Mars because (1) frequent launch windows (with lots of benefits that provides to developing a technology base) and (2) greater chance in the near-term to bring the Moon into our “economic sphere” (critical to attracting non-NASA dollars to space exploration).

    I think Paul’s plan is overly specific and too government-centric. For example, a combination of SpaceX’s reusable Grasshopper technology and fuel depots may negate much of the economic value of building up the industrial capacity for producing fuel on the Moon.

    I think in the near-term (the next 10 years) NASA should really push and expand the Lunar X-Prize and Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge. Perhaps initially Congress should commit to buying ‘n’ launches each year for 10 years (for some suitable value of ‘n’), and then effectively provide these launches free to various X-prize competitors.

    Critical to the approach is attracting outside resources — sponsors (e.g., Google), advertisers, donated labor/resources (e.g., the Ansari X prize and Google Lunar X Prize have had lots of donated labor), investors (how much did Musk invest in SpaceX?), business models (would people pay to have their bones or ashes interred on the Moon?).

    This has gotten too long already, but I hope the kernel of the idea is there.

    • Paul Spudis says:
      0
      0

      Our lunar architecture is specific because if you publish a non-specific plan, you are accused of not knowing the details. If you publish a specific plan, you are accused of of being too prescriptive. Our architectural choices were made for illustrative purposes — to show how a viable plan might be implemented. The creation of a broad strategic framework for a resources-based architecture was the main objective of our work.

      Our architecture is launch-vehicle agnostic (by design). We describe our payload delivery requirements and note which existing vehicles can meet them. We do not exclude any possible vehicle substitutions if they become available at a later date.

      We focus on making water/fuel because it is the first enabling asset. Once you are on the Moon and producing surplus water, all other resource processing becomes possible. I remain skeptical that launch delivery costs will ever become low enough to supply all of our logistical needs by launch from Earth, but in any event, making fuel and consumables from space resources is a necessary technical development for space permanence so why not bite the bullet now and learn how to do it?