Spanning the HEOMD-SMD Gap
NASA science chief advocates ties with human spaceflight, SpaceflightNow
“Grunsfeld told Spaceflight Now he met with Bill Gerstenmaier, head of NASA’s human exploration division, in his first week in office. “One of the reasons I’m in this job now is because NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden believed that teaming with human spaceflight on those things that make sense, on our exploration program, for science to take advantage of the resources of human spaceflight, for human spaceflight to be informed by the science we can do at planetary destinations, for instance, can make the whole program stronger,” Grunsfeld said.”
“The new Space Launch System starts at 70 metric tons [capacity to low Earth orbit] with a very large fairing,” Grunsfeld said. “That can enable science missions that we would never be able to imagine if we were restricted to Delta 2s and Atlas 5s.”
And that we would never be able to afford. Even if the SLS were free. Just loading up an Atlas V every once in a while does a pretty good job of sucking the SMD budget dry. (An Atlas V 541 or 551 puts around 18 metric tons to LEO.)
Will the new heavy lift vehicles offer more opportunities for larger satellites and/or large numbers of smaller satelites?
There’s no question in my mind that research (science and R&D) and human exploration (HSF) can be mutually supportive, and can achieve more working together than each in its own little world. However, that’s no secret, and it’s been recognized for a long time, yet no significant amount of action appears to have been taken in terms of working together over the years. I have to wonder if they tried and didn’t succeed, or if they simply didn’t try. And, in either case, why?
Both the Hubble repair missions and the assembly, maintenance and repair of the ISS are examples of not only the synergy possible by divisions working together, but also clearly demonstrate that there are some things possible only by having the science directorates and HSF working together. If we add in the capabilities made possible by the ever-expanding robotics fields, then what can’t we do?
There’s a lot to be gained through friendly competition between divisions/centers/programs. The guys and gals who sit on the other side of the organization chart are not the enemy (at least they shouldn’t be). If it’s always a matter of “us and them,” and battling for a bigger chunk of the shrinking budget, then morale and productivity are both going to be way below what they could and should be.
If Grunsfeld and Bolden can make this cooperative workplace work, there may yet be hope for NASA and the US space program. And it shouldn’t stop with Research and HSF. Put an end to the enmity between centers and make the processes and procedures more common across the various programs where it makes sense. Make “One NASA” more than just an abandoned platitude. Start working together NASA, instead of working apart.
Steve