Space is bigger than NASA, Scott Pace, The Hill
“During the presidential campaign, Vice President Mike Pence promised to “relaunch the national space policy council headed by the vice president.” The White House does not, and has never needed, a space council to supervise NASA, but it does need a way to combine the separate strands of national security space programs, diplomatic engagement, commercial competition and civil space cooperation with a unity of national purpose and effort. Leadership in space is vital to protecting our own interests and creating a more stable international order in which the United States continues to be the indispensable nation. The Trump administration has the opportunity to “Make America Great Again” in space, not by repeating the past or relying on others to lead, but by working across traditionally separate departments and agencies and creating new partnerships for commerce, security and exploration. A national space council, led by Vice President Pence, can make this a reality.”
The beauty of a LV independent architecture with the goal of reuse is that 1) lowers launch costs 2) enables incremental improvements 3) provides demonstrated reliability of common LV configurations to find that unknown with little financial risk since 80% of NASA’s mission mass is dirt cheap, Class D propellant 4) creates a framework for reuse to further reduce future launch costs.
Rather than a council, simple examine the basics: NASA requires ~ 200mT/yr to head to Mars. This can be accomplished by 2 to 4 LVs sized at 10-20mT launched 5-10 times each, easily provided by the DOD fleet. Increased flight rate spreads fixed costs over more flights. The US has excess, expendable LV capacity and HLV is too big.
Simply consolidate the expendable, expensive, decades old SLS/Atlas/Delta and NASA will rely on the DOD fleet. This saves $Bs/yr, which can be redirected to actual technology development and missions, reducing the launch costs for science as well. IPs can provide launches as well to further reduce costs.
Its difficult to see how adding yet another layer USG fixes such a simple solution to move toward next space frontier. In fact, what the nation does not need is the lack of leadership presented by this extremely vague editorial. VP selects LV type and size?!
Just because you have a hammer (or your preferred launch vehicle approach) doesn’t mean every problem is a nail (or a Mars launch architecture problem). A National Space Council should work across institutional stovepipes – exactly the kind of body that COULD have decided to grow an EELV to meet exploration requirements instead of developing a largely Shuttle derived SLS. That train has long left the station – SLS will happen – but other challenges that can’t or shouldn’t be resolved inside of one department or agency in the space domain abound – a Space Council will help fix this.
The DOD fleet consists of the Atlas and Delta, plus to some degree the Falcon and possibly the new Glenn. Money can be saved only if programs are cancelled, and each program has politically entrenched defenders.
I’ve followed writing and comments by Dr. Pace for many years. I don’t know him. He’s not apparently driven by a political agenda, and while I find myself disagreeing with him on policy issues from time to time (not being qualified on technical issues), his writing is usually clear and easy to follow.
I can’t see the logic behind his enthusiasm for either a national space council or for Mr. Pence. I get his point that space activities shouldn’t solely be the domain of NASA. But how does a national space council (call it NSC), led by Mr. Pence or not, move the ball forward?
Moreover, even as a card-carrying liberal, I’m quite wary of another agency created to “coordinate” activities among other agencies. More red tape for sure, and for what? As I follow Dr. Pace’s point, would this new NSC be a vehicle to expand space-related activities? Or to eliminate duplication? Other agencies are already deeply involved in space; the military’s secretive programs are perhaps the best and biggest example.
One thing he says stands out:
SLS, are you listening?
Excellent piece.
People often forget that the Council is not an office in the White House like OSTP or OMB. It is the Vice President and the heads of several space-relevant agencies. As Scott says, the President and Vice President don’t need a Council to manage individual agencies. But the Council makes it easier for the White House to set strategic goals for the nation’s space enterprise, with buy-in from and interacting responsibilities for each space agency.
The question, as always, is what strategic goals do we want to set, and are we willing to pay the price, both in dollars and in painful institutional change, to achieve them.
I am little confused. What would this council actually *do*? Personally, I don’t see that much conflict between the various US government space programs, other than maybe for funding, that needs coordinating. Their various missions don’t overlap much at all, so is coordination even needed? Yes, NASA and NOAA often do similar missions, but they seem to do fine collaborating when they need to, all other things being equal. Maybe if there was a true national vision for space that encompassed all government space activities, it would make sense, but I don’t see such a vision. Maybe there is some need at the government level for coordination, but I’d like to hear more specifics.
I also see no need to “coordinate” commercial activities. Maybe to oversee some (and hopefully minimal) regulations or some such thing. But really, just let the commercial folks do their thing, make use of their services for government activities when appropriate, and let the space economy blossom on its own.