To boldly go where we went in 1969?
Test & Measurement World’s March issue is online now, and its cover story profiles engineers at Alliance Spacesystems, which makes, among other things, robotic arms for Mars missions. In the same issue, I comment in my Editor’s Note on the future of manned space flight in light of the Obama administration’s withdrawal of support for NASA’s Constellation program. In that commentary, I contrast the view of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who wants government to pursue manned space flight and a return to the moon, with that of James Bacchus, a former Democratic member of Congress, who wants private industry to play a role.Since my Editor’s Note went to print, John P. Holdren, President Obama’s science and technology adviser and director of the White Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Charles Bolden, NASA administrator, responded to Krauthammer’s column in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post. They write, “Despite valiant efforts by NASA and its contractors, President George W. Bush’s Constellation program would not have been able to send astronauts to the international space station until two years after the station had crashed into the ocean.” They add that the Obama administration “…partners with the private sector to develop quicker, cheaper, home-grown capacity to put astronauts in orbit; invests in R&D for game-changing technologies to take Americans to deep-space destinations faster; and revitalizes NASA programs in Earth observation, space science and aeronautics.”
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has also weighed in on the value of private industry. He writes, “Our modern economy depends on space–it is woven into our social fabric, from bank transactions and weather forecasts that depend on satellite signals, to GPS and the latest overhead images by commercial spacecraft that will help us rebuild Haiti. America’s commercial space industry can bring private investment to the table and enable government dollars to go much further in meeting our goals. Our nation’s military already benefits from the use of commercial communications and remote sensing satellites, and trusts the commercial sector to launch critical military satellites on rockets designed and built commercially. Now NASA is poised to follow in the same direction by placing an emphasis on commercial space.”
Also having weighed in with a blog item on the Huffington Post is Buzz Aldrin, who sketches out how a public/private partnership might work. He assigns to private industry the task of carrying astronauts into orbit (and back). Once in orbit, the astronauts would transfer to a NASA-build space-only vehicle, which would be based on what he calls the Exploration Module, or XM. Such a vehicle-called the Aldrin cycler, would be capable of exploring asteroids or the moons of Mars, he says. He elaborates in the Wall Street Journal, writing, “If we follow the president’s plan, our next destination in space, Mars, will be within our reach. Rich in potential resources-including water, an atmosphere, and oxygen in the soil-Mars invites human exploration and eventual habitation. But perfecting the technology necessary to succeed in our eventual journey is a wise first step. Empowering the private sector to carry crews and cargoes into orbit faster is a critical second step.”
It’s worth taking a look at what we get from the space program, in addition to the 24 spinoffs NASA claims (and no, Tang, Teflon, and Velcro aren’t on the list). Krauthammer hints at the crux of the issue with this statement: “Today the manned space program will die for want of $3 billion a year-1/300th of last year’s stimulus package with its endless make-work projects that will leave not a trace on the national consciousness.”
But rather than a trace left behind, what’s important is the inspiration and innovation prompted by the challenges in meeting future goals. In addition to specific spinoffs related to NASA projects, the space program of the 1960s inspired myriad students (including me) to study science, physics, and related technical fields. Even those who never worked directly on the manned space flight program have been instrumental in developing the technology that, as Governor Richardson puts it, is “woven into our social fabric.”
I agree with Aldrin’s approach of a public/private partnership pursuing the ultimate goal of putting humans on Mars. And that should be coupled with unmanned exploration. As for a concerted effort to return to the moon within a decade, “To boldly go where we went in 1969″ just isn’t very inspirational.
kkrumm commented:
It is interesting to hear that the editor of a magazine devoted to very technology that the space program brought about, now thinks that we should sit back and let the rest of the world lead. I also don’t understand why a reasonably intelligent editor can't understand why a democratic ex-congressman would agree with Obama, while a conservative would disagree with him. It's politics as usual and there are far more votes to be purchased by throwing tax money around in social programs than by funding the space program. The US is becoming a third rate power in the world and our President is leading the charge, sorry, retreat! Instead of lighting a fire of imagination he is funding mediocrity. Instead of promoting the very science and technology that brought out the very best in America, he panders to the lazy and uninformed. How much would we have learned about North America if, instead of human explorers, we had sent robots to do the job? I’ll pay my taxes with a smile to go to the moon, mars or anywhere in space, but not to fund stupid make work federal programs like a low speed rail system here in Ohio that most Ohioans have said they won’t ride anyhow. We need to light a fire under this country to get the kids off the couch and back into science and math. The space program can do that, as it did in the 60’s.
Timbalionguy commented:
The reason for humans to be in space is because it is man's nature to explore. When that hope is stymied by a need for 'political correctness' and 'complete safety', then man as a race is finished.
Battar commented:
Governer Richardson mentioned important space related technology which can be (and is) acheived with unmanned spacecraft. Do we really need to send a human into space along with the satellites and robotic probes? I can't think of a single worthwhile space mission that requires human presence
Andy T commented:
I'll only believe the maverick engineer's opinion in all of this, not those with mink-lined pockets who are looking to steal even more cash from the US Treasury's credit card.
Burt Rutan, who actually IS commercializing space (aka - paying the rent with space) in partnership with Richard Branson's Virgin Galctic, said that private sector dependency by the US government was "a very big mistake for America to make".
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240004575085810715611660.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines
Timbalionguy commented:
Not only do we need a LEO insertion and return vehicle, we need one like the current space shuttle. Although I understand the limitations of the space shuttle concept, and that the existing fleet is old, it is a travesty that nothing like it is under development. The space shuttle is the only vehicle that is capable of returning a large payload to earth. It is arguably the most successful manned space vehicle ever flown, despite the two accidents. With what we have learned, we should be able to build a better, lighter, simpler, safer space shuttle. It will be needed to build the next space station, and the one after that, etc. The involvement of commercial players is a good thing, as it is the needs of commerce that have ultimately driven much of exploration. That said, our space program used to be a gem in our crown. It would appear that our current administration is going to let that gem fall out and become lost.
Ernie commented:
Does it make sense to privatize the capability and knowledge to make Intercontinental Missiles? Some how I think government should keep control of missile technology.
May be NASA could also work on high speed ground transportation/rail contracting our much of it and we would really have something that employs high skilled work force, leaves something for citizens of the US, and would also have spin off developements. Food for thought.
I work on NASA and goverment space programs.
Letter to the president commented:
I am not sure how or who to send this letter to but I composed it a while back after reading the article copied below.
President Obama,
I am a very concerned citizen. At the current rate of progress as described in the article below, China could return men to the moon and establish a base on the moon before the US. I do not know the international laws on who can claim what on the moon is but I bet the first one returning will pick the best places with the best resources.
I was a elementary school student in 1961 when president Kennedy declared we were going to put a man on the moon and asked the public (us kids) to help pay for the program. I think you should do the same now. Let today’s students and us old-timers contribute directly to the Moon/Mars programs to keep them safely moving as fast as possible. These contributions are not to let congress reduce their commitment to the moon or other NASA program spending but only to accelerate the moon and Mars programs.
I want the hearts of the American people to again be filled with the pride of accomplishment that we felt back in 1969. I do not want to feel the great disappointment and loss of pride in our nation if we become a second class space fairing nation.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is an issue of the people of the United States and as President you should make it your issue.
Ken Boone
7011 Wildlife Trail
Raleigh, NC 27613
Alan commented:
Am I missing something, or are there human-rated vehicles in the commercial sphere? Specifically, who has built a human-rated re-entry vehicle? Yes, we have launchers capable of lifting a manned vehicle but who has the can for the spam on top? I guess Russia will be happy to build and provide Soyuz spam cans but those are pretty archaic and have a whole set of problems of their own.
We still need the LEO insertion and return vehicle, regardless of the launcher that's under it.
