Keith Cowing has gotten his hands on a draft space policy document that's apparently been floating around inside the Beltway. He thinks that it may provide some insight into potential Kerry space policy. If so, it sounds like business as usual (in terms of the continuing notion that NASA must remain in the lead of developing new human transportation systems).

As Keith writes:

I am struck by the rather superficial nature of the analysis being done. The paper either skims over important details or simply regurgitates technical descriptions gleaned from news reports and NASA documents. No obvious attempt is made to systematically compare and contrast various technical risks and then prioritize them in a fashion that offers a chance for larger conclusions to be derived. This document is just a laundry list. The only clear recommendations made by the authors have to do with their views on national space policy - something which would seem to be beyond the scope of what they were tasked to do in the first place.

There is also the issue as to the level of expertise in place at GWU to fully understand the technical operations of the shuttle and ISS. Looking at the project staff listed on GWU's website no one seems to have any experience working with human spaceflight operations or systems or risk and safety analysis associated with human spaceflight. Of course, I have not seen the proposal they submitted - one which might list additional personnel with that expertise who are assisting in this project. None the less, this apparent lack of expertise in the area of human spaceflight and risk analysis is evident in many places in this paper.

Yes. John Logsdon is a great historian of the space program, but his policy prescriptions are often wrongheaded, because he fundamentally doesn't understand the technology issues.

What I found most disturbing was this section:

The paper leaves a clear impression that the authors think that the shuttle system is very risky - perhaps too risky to continue flying. The paper goes on to make a broad observation that the shuttle should be flown much less often than NASA plans to fly it:

"Some individuals, although a small number of those interviewed by the GW team on a confidential basis, have gone so far as to assert that the Shuttle program should be permanently halted, the Orbiters permanently grounded, and the ISS limited in scope with certain elements not completed because of the risks presented by the ambitious launch schedule required to complete the ISS. These individuals with major safety concerns have also said that “to the extent that the ISS construction is continued or operated further” the program should be serviced by expendable vehicles rather than by Space Shuttle launches to the maximum extent possible and that new, higher reliability human-rated launch vehicles as well as robotically controlled heavy lift expendable vehicles should be developed as a matter of priority to support all future space exploration programs."

Of course not everyone agreed with this:

"There are many more individuals who were consulted who did not agree with this assessment. These persons acknowledged that there were concerns, but they strongly felt that the refurbished Shuttle orbiters and the external tank system were highly reliable and could be safely used to complete the ISS."

Gosh, how about none of the above? Once again, we have a false choice.

If we aren't going to fly the Shuttle to capacity, it makes no sense to fly it at all. It costs us several billion a year to maintain the capability to do so, even at a zero flight rate (as is the case now). Either fly it until they're all gone (including crew--they knew the job was dangerous when they took it) or shut it down and apply the savings somewhere else, but don't take these foolish half measures.

And there are more options than Shuttle, or a capsule on an expendable (CEV), but they're never considered in any of these policy documents, because their policy premises are flawed. They need to read my New Atlantis piece.

And speaking of Kerry space policy, he finally has released an official one.

It's underwhelming, and as someone over at Space Politics points out in comments, it makes no mention of either Shuttle or station. However, like most of Kerry's policy nostrums, it does mention the word "Bush" extensively.

I may do a column on it later this week.

[Update in the afternoon]

An emailer comments that it's inappropriate to be criticizing a leaked draft document (or to be attributing it to Professor Logsdon, when we don't know how much he contributed to it, if at all). He also says that it was inappropriate to leak and publish it, but I'll let the emailer take that up with Mr. Cowing. Setting aside the fact that this happens in DC all the time, fair enough. However, it's not incongruent with the kinds of sentiments that I've personally heard Professor Logsdon express, and to the degree that it is a draft, now would be an appropriate time to attempt to influence it in a more useful direction, regardless of who the author is.

As I said, Professor Logsdon is an admirable historian, but I wouldn't necessarily take his advice on space policy, and if Kerry manages to win, I hope that he doesn't either. My fear with a Kerry administration space policy, as is my fear of a Kerry administration defense and foreign policy, is that it will consist of Clinton retreads, and it will mean a return to the ineffectiveness of the nineties.

[One more update]

My emailer points out that we don't even know that it is in fact a draft of Kerry policy, or that it has anything to do with Kerry. Agreed.

So, just consider my comments a criticism of a leaked draft of whatever someone was writing. I don't know if it was Logsdon, and I don't know if it has anything to do with potential Kerry space policy. But if it does, (or even, for that matter, if it doesn't) I've expressed my opinion of it, and it remains unchanged.

My emailer asks me if I'd mind if someone stole something that I was working on before I was ready to publish, and published it without my permission. I suppose, but the reasons why would depend on the circumstances. It would certainly be an effective way of getting prepublication feedback, but it might also steal the thunder from the eventual publication.

Anyway, I don't know the provenance of the Spaceref stuff. As I said, it's hardly unheard of to leak documents in DC. We rarely seem to question the reporter's motives or ethics when it happens (that's perceived somehow to be their job), and truth be told, the amount of outrage over it is usually a partisan function of who is perceived to be damaged by it, rather than any intrinsic ethics of the act itself.

But as I also said, I'll let Keith (who does indeed at least seem to have a vendetta going against certain individuals lately, not to defend Lori Garver, who I think has acted as a shameless shill for Kerry in the past few weeks) defend himself.

I'll sure be glad when this election is over, though it may not be until December, the way some of the Dems and their ten thousand lawyers are talking.

>>If so, it sounds like business as usual (in terms of the continuing notion that NASA must remain in the lead of developing new human transportation systems).

There is no indication that the policy outline puth forth by GWB would change that notion.

In fact, all the official space policy versions floating around are awfully NASA-centric.

There is no indication that the policy outline put forth by GWB would change that notion.

I agree.

In fact, all the official space policy versions floating around are awfully NASA-centric.

Yup. The main difference is that at least President Bush has laid out an expansive policy goal. Go read Kerry's policy, which like most of his prescriptions, is to be not Bush.

"The wrong destination, with the wrong budget, at the wrong time..."

Kerry will "do it better."

Right.

If we aren't going to fly the Shuttle to capacity, it makes no sense to fly it at all. It costs us several billion a year to maintain the capability to do so, even at a zero flight rate (as is the case now). Either fly it until they're all gone (including crew--they knew the job was dangerous when they took it) or shut it down and apply the savings somewhere else, but don't take these foolish half measures.

Exactly!

My choice? Shut it down, now. Never fly it again.

= = =

On the larger question, if America's future in space depends on who the President is our space future is in big trouble.

A truly viable private sector business model will thrive no matter who is President.

Not if that president implements policies that don't allow it to thrive (e.g., overregulating passenger spaceflight).

Not if that president implements policies that don't allow it to thrive (e.g., overregulating passenger spaceflight).

I thought this issue was the responsibility of Congress.

Sustainability at anything (space exploration, war on terror etc. . .) requires us to migrate away from the idea that choosing the "right" Supreme Leader will solve our problems.

= = =

Isn't the suborbital liability issue tied up over stuff like the definition of "rocket" as a subterfuge for favoring one state's projects over another?

A classic special interests fight having nothing to do with larger "Left vs Right" issues.

And I have long felt security issues (like those described by Taylor Dinerman concerning ITAR) will be a greater impediment to civilian Earth to LEO than insurance issues.

Those daft model rocketry restrictions are coming from Ashcroft et. al. not Teddy Kennedy.

Well, part of the problem is that the space program has benefited tremendously from its national PR aspects. John Kennedy did not propose going to the Moon to make his shareholders rich.

But if the program is structured in such a way that it gains significantly when it's good for national PR, then, alas, it also loses significantly when it's bad for national PR. And the last two Shuttle accidents have indeed been bad for the national image.

That's the way it goes when the driving force is national fame. That's why sensible people long for a transition away from national public-spirited motives, "noble" motives of exploration and science, and toward private motives, "selfish" motives seeking individual profit. History shows very clearly that the former are sadly mercurial while the latter are exceedingly robust.

When investors are making money from space access it will go on and on, whether or not its image in the media is as gratifying to couch potatoes as the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team and whether or not an ADHD Congress can pay attention.

Also, Rand, I think you're a little hard on the Bush Administration. You know as well as I that politics is the art of the possible. He's got to work with what he's got, and the space program has a lot of vested interests in Congress. If he proposes something radical that would please you and other forward thinkers, it's just going to make a pretty fireball as it smashes into the ground in Congress. Beautiful but futile is not this President's modus operandi.

I also think you are a little overly kind to the Kerry campaign if you compare what they say to what the Bush Administration does. One of the contrasts that has become apparent in this campaign is that there is pretty big gap between "say" and "do" for John Kerry.

Rand, you've successfully altered my brain. As I was reading Keith's NASA Watch postings, I was noting the false choice issue and anticipating your response. The part that irritated me was the implication that NASA had to come up with substantally lower risk (essentially zero-risk) systems in order for exploration to continue. Under that policy approach, we're not going anywhere.

Branson to build space hotel.

Spot on, Richard, spot on. Marketing, advertising and media savvy is the easiest way to make money in space.

By the way, six months ago, or so, I rambled on right here at this very web-site about how selling the name rights for the first space hotel could underwrite a significant percentage of the cost.

While Branson and Virgin will make money from selling tickets to LEO and rooms in LEO, his BIG pay day will be the media and brand value arising from selling even more seats on Earth bound Virgin Airlines and whatever terrestial hotel chain he partners up with.

If Branson had an annual lottery where every mile flown on Virgin Airlines gave 1 chance for a flight to LEO, the profits from filling seats here on Earth would swamp the profits made from selling tickets to LEO.

Sell the sizzle, not the steak.

= = =

By the way, a 5 or 6 segment ATK Thiokol RSRM mated with a cluster of Pratt and Whitney RL-60s may well be the cheapest way to orbit a Bigelow built hotel.

And speaking of Kerry space policy, he finally has released an official one.

Come on, Rand. Kerry has always had only ONE position on space policy.

:-)