Impaired Vision

Paul Spudis is unhappy with the new policy, and thinks that the VSE baby go thrown out with the Constellation bathwater. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but to disgustingly extend the metaphor, the bathwater was so polluted that the baby couldn’t have survived anyway, and it had to be done. We’ll just have to have another one, and be more careful the next time. I think we’re still fertile.

7 thoughts on “Impaired Vision”

  1. This morning Administrator Bolden said we won’t be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    Bobby Block on HLV – governement or commercial (or international). If Congress want Constellation what are you going to tell them.

    Bolden: I will speak about capability and HLV is needed. We need it for DOD, science, and HSF. No disagreement. We take the lessons learned from Constellation. We might actually start carving out some tech from the current systems (wow again). I don’t want to throw away the baby with the bathwater.

    The president has instructed me this will be an international effort. I’m meeting three tonight at the launch. It’s going to be different by putting international partners into the critical path. People worry about who’s going to be on the moon first. There’s six flags on the moon today – all six are US flags. Am I concerned about China (or other countries) will soon have a flag on the moon? No, as they will be joining six American flags.

    From Chris Bergin’s live blog of of Bolden’s presser.

    Bolden also said the goal is Mars.

    And he said to build a little, test a little.

    Something for everyone.

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20364.msg537857;topicseen#new

  2. People worry about who’s going to be on the moon first. There’s six flags on the moon today – all six are US flags. Am I concerned about China (or other countries) will soon have a flag on the moon? No, as they will be joining six American flags.

    Thanks for this quote — I could not articulate myself a better example of the complete and utter brainlessness of the “new path.” If Bolden actually believes that planting a flag is the principal objective of space exploration, he is as clueless as the the roll out presentation of the new budget suggests.

    So this is the “whole new paradigm” for space that so many are so wild about. Color me unimpressed.

  3. You have to accept that Bolden is the best we were going to get from this hyper-politically correct administration. But there’s not much point in planting a flag if you’re not going to claim sovereignty. Thanks, the people who negotiated the OST!

  4. The “plant the flag” mindset is not limited to Bolden (I only wish it were). Much of the agency, most of the media, and a lot of the so-called “space community” clearly subscribe to it as well. It is most often expressed in the trite and fatuous phrase “Been there, done that,” as though once “conquered,” there is no possible justification for returning to someplace we’ve been. Apparently, the people who think this are making space policy these days.

  5. Paul,

    [[[“Been there, done that,” as though once “conquered,” there is no possible justification for returning to someplace we’ve been.]]]

    Unfortunately the geopolitical competition mindset that dominated polar exploration in the early 20th Century seems to have imprinted itself heavily on space exploration. Someone reached the Pole, no need to go back again.

    Just as with the Moon Race in the 1960’s there was a Polar Race in the first decade of the 20th Century with several nations trying to reach the poles, but once Adm. Peary and Roald Amundsen claimed victory the expeditions stopped for a generation, until aircraft provided another way to claim a “first”. It wasn’t until 1957 that the South Pole was reached overland again and again it was part of another “first”, went the Commonwealth Trans-Antarctica Expedition, commanded by Sir Edmund Hillary, who added it to his conquest of Everest, and Dr. Vivian Fuchs, claimed the honor of being the first to cross the continent by land. And if I recall the North Pole was not reached again by land until 1968 when snowmobiles were used to claim another first.

    Needless to say many good opportunities to do science and research in Antarctica were pasted up in the 60 year gap before permanent research stations were established. Now it appears the same mindset is indeed deeply ingrained for space policy. Look at how the Russians have avoided the Moon since Apollo. That is why I have given up on NASA in regards to the Moon.

    In terms of Antarctica, it didn’t change until the IGY when the NSF set up the U.S Antarctic Program to provide dedicated funding to continued Antarctic research.

    In terms of the Moon, the only way I see it changing is to take the responsibility of lunar research away from NASA and either create a dedicated funding model under NSF (unlikely for a number of political reasons, including Mars folks crying for their own dedicated funds and breaking the budget as they have done for NASA science missions) or a dedicated Lunar Development Corporation.

    Given the International focus of this administration you would probably want to take the Lunar Development Corporation one step further and advocate for an International Lunar Development Corporation, consisting of the U.S. India, Russia, ESA and perhaps China, although China does seem to prefer going it alone in space so far.

    BTW the reason I am thinking of including Development and Corporation in the title is so the emphasis would include infrastructure development and research focused on lunar settlement as well as basic research. And a Comsat model would make it easier to raise funds and form alliances with commercial entities for technology and economic activities.

    Incidentally a Lunar Development Corporation would also be of major advantage to New Space since unlike NASA it would not have the legacy of building its own rockets and would likely follow the NSF model of chartering commercially for transportation and logistic support. So it would provide a new sovereign customer for New Space firms to sell services to. Of course in the International model they would have to compete with RKK Energiya, India and Adriane for providing launch services but then that is true today for the comsat market.

  6. Thomas,

    I am in agreement with you about the idea of a development corporation and I also agree that it would stimulate more private sector activity on the Moon.

    However, the fact remains that NASA exists, it consumes $20 billion per year of our national wealth, I as a taxpayer, I want something more back in return on that “investment” than a new PR photo-op stunt on Phobos. Moreover, regardless of the opinions of some, there are several national security considerations in regard to cislunar space access that a lunar return by the federal government addresses. A Mars mission 40 years into the future does not.

  7. Paul,

    Yes, it is hard to watch NASA spend the large budget it has on space while ignoring the Moon. But NASA has a very strong and deep rooted culture that I feel makes it impossible for NASA to lead or even have a major role in a lunar return. As you noted in your Blog, there is a strong belief at NASA that science is exploration, not development. The NASA culture also places a strong value of firsts, especially ones that have geopolitical significance. Both combine to create an agency attitude that there is no value going back to the Moon because we have already been there and already have samples from the surface. Been there, done that, lets move on…

    Add to that NASA’s strong focus on Mars dating back to the early days of Werner Von Braun at the agency. Indeed, many people forget that President’s Kennedy’s fifth goal for the space program (May, 1961) was development of a nuclear rocket engine, an engine that would be critical for human missions to Mars. These elements of NASA culture are well established, too well to be overcome even with a clear Presidential directive and a strong administrator. Organization culture is always hard to change and when its as strong as NASA the organization will often go down with flags flying rather then abandon its core values. I am able to think of numerous instances of such behavior in private industry where even powerful CEO were unable to turn an organizational away from its path to destruction.

    That is also why I don’t have much hope that the new policy will change much at NASA. NASA may give a couple hundred million to New Space companies to look at “commercial” human spaceflight, just as they did to look at lunar architectures when the VSE came out, (remember tSpace?), but when the real contracts go out it will be to the same contractors that have served NASA’s needs since its was created – Lockheed Martin , Boeing, perhaps Northrup-Gruman. The only difference will be who legally owns the spacecraft NASA funded and the accounting details of the contractor payments. In terms of space commerce there will be no practical difference between them and the current model of USA operating the Shuttle.

    SpaceX MAY get a contract IF everything goes perfect with Falcon 9/Dragon and IF New Space makes enough noise, but those are big IFs, which is why I think the same New Space advocates cheering this policy move will be booing it in a couple of years while waving their pitchforks and torches…. Just as was the case with the VSE…

    As further proof of the height of the cultural barriers at NASA’s to a return to the Moon just look at the numerous robotic missions NASA has funded in the last 37 years since Apollo 17. Of all those missions only two went to the Moon and both were the result of strong external pressure, Lunar Prospector being the result of Clementine and LRO a result of the early VSE announcement. That is why I have come to believe NASA will have at best a limited role in returning humans to the Moon and it’s a waste of energy to try to change their culture to the extent required to make them the lead agency for a lunar return.

    That is also why I have come to believe the only short term way to return to the Moon will be through a government corporation, one created in the Comsat, TVA tradition. Yes, I also agree there are major national security issues involving U.S. presence on the Moon, just as there were with comsats in the 1960’s, and TVA in the 1930’s & 1940’s, which is another reason I see the need for a government funded corporation. However, given the current administration I could see the value also of an international approach with an International Lunar Development Corporation (ILDC) in which the U.S. role would be much like the Comsat role was in Intelsat. With the current administration I see that as perhaps the best option to preserve the drive to return to the Moon. I also see an ILDC being a much better match with the market needs of New Space then NASA just as Comsat was a key factor in driving the first generation of space commerce firms and the evolution of the first generation of space markets. But New Space leaders seem too focused on getting a share of the NASA pie to care about other more practical options…

    Yes, it is sad to write off the $20 billion a year as a tax payer, but when developing strategy you have to take into consideration where best to focus limited resources and energy to get a return on the time invested. Too much effort has been wasted on trying to ‘transform” NASA into something it never was and never will be to waste any more time and efforts on it. In my view the $20 billion NASA budget has just been a siren call to destruction for New Space and advocates of a space faring society and its time to deafen our ears to it.

Comments are closed.