You know, the more I think about this, the more I think it should always have been a no brainer.
The first rule of wing walking is to not let go of the airplane with one hand until you have a firm new grip with the other. It's pretty simple: don't shut down the Shuttle until you have a replacement in place (and preferably redundantly).
The only reason we're undertaking such a dumb policy is because of the panic after the loss of Columbia causing a desire to end the program ASAP, and an unwillingness to pay what it cost to fund the new development at the same time we were continuing to spend billions annually on keeping the Shuttle going. The notion that we can take the savings from ending the Shuttle to develop the new systems seems appealing, but it essentially guarantees a "gap."
And it's all a result of the fact that space isn't important. Is there any other government activity where we arbitrarily assign a budget number to it, and then demand that its endeavors fit within that budget? But that's the way Congress has always viewed NASA--that there's a certain level of spending that's politically acceptable, and no more. If space were important, we'd do what we did in Apollo--establish a goal, and then provide the funding necessary to achieve it. But it's not, other than for pork and prestige. It's important that we have a space program, but it's not at all important that it accomplish anything of value. Until that attitude changes, we're unlikely to get sensible policy.
Actually, I think there's a lot of areas where "we arbitrarily assign a budget number to it, and then demand that its endeavors fit within that budget". Pretty much all government scientific research works that way, most of the departments of 'discretionary funding' like Education, Energy, and so on. Even the highway system seems to work this way.
And honestly, I like space research, but the only parts of Federal space that I think are important are the military bits. If it were really important, it wouldn't need a government, any more than computers or automobiles. That's what excites me about the private space companies - people are finally discovering things about space that are important enough that *they're* willing to do, rather than wish that someone else would do it.
Space isn't important because it doesn't address any of Washinton's needs. During Apollo we needed to show we were better than the Soviets. Since space can't win the war on terror or close the budget deficit, DC doesn't care.
I wonder if the movie Armageddon made matters worse for NASA. Asteroid protection is a real concern that only space access can deal with, but maybe the public actually has the vague idea that NASA can always save us at the drop of a hat if necessary. As a public policy piece it might have been better if the world died at the end. The tagline could be "The rock came, and we weren't ready."
What other real needs does space access address that are potential drivers of funding? What goals could we have to meet those needs that the public would understand easily?
"To map 100% of NEA threats by 2012. To have a response-system in place by 2016." (Safety, Defense)
"To beam 10% of America's energy from space by 2015." (Energy)
Others?
Space isn't important because it doesn't address any of Washinton's needs. During Apollo we needed to show we were better than the Soviets. Since space can't win the war on terror or close the budget deficit, DC doesn't care.
The biggest "need" in Washington is to get reelected. Civilian space spending doesn't buy enough votes for most policians to care. $16 billion out of a $2+ trillion budget is down in the noise level. It's enough to buy a few votes around the various NASA centers and bigger contractors but not much else.
Actually, I can think of a very good reason to have a gap between the Shuttle and whatever comes next. That provides an opportunity to get rid of the army of Shuttle related employees. If one follwed the other immediately, then there would be pressure to find a way to keep an employee around and find him new work (or makework) for the new launcher. The gap allows h.r. to be pruned and potentially a new culture to take root in the agency. You will lose some of your knowledge base too, but given what some NASA employees know (or think they know) that might not be entirely bad. I wonder even if Griffen has thought of that but doesn't dare say it out loud.
Brock: "What other real needs does space access address that are potential drivers of funding? What goals could we have to meet those needs that the public would understand easily?"
Space can help solve numerous problems. That includes robotic and human space, public and private, etc. If you're talking about NASA, aeronautics can do even more. I wouldn't go so far as to say space can solve all of these problems all by itself, but it can contribute important results. Here are some problem areas space can (and in most cases already does) help with (areas that the government happens to spend lots of money on already):
- security and defense (military defense and winning wars, detecting and reacting to terrorist attacks, detecting and reacting to natural disasters and man-made accidents, etc)
- energy (fuel-efficient planes, SPS/SRS, efficient power systems, metering, geographical energy assessment/mapping, etc)
- environment (monitoring, efficient life support, etc)
- health/medicine (pharmaceutical research, space medicine, telemedicine, etc)
- transportation (space transport, air transport, GPS and comsat support for cars, trucks, boats etc, transportation planning using satellite imagery, etc)
- economy (new space industries, support for other industries using weather satellites, comsats, GPS, etc)
- education (encouraging STEM through inspiration, working with universities and students on space projects, etc)
- science (I won't bother going into this since NASA is known for science already)
A lot of this already happens with NASA, other agencies, and private industry, but NASA could pitch in much more with good policies (research into better satellite components for its missions it can spin off, support for CATS, using commercial space, etc). Other areas are yet to be proven, but NASA could help do this with demos and incentives to commercial space.
However, having the NASA branch of the government build great big rockets to be operated and used by the NASA branch of the government for NASA government missions to the space station and the Moon has very little to do with solving, or helping to solve, any of these problems.
It's pretty simple: don't shut down the Shuttle until you have a replacement in place (and preferably redundantly).
Bush is wrong on a lot of issues, but he is right to retire the Shuttle no matter what. Again, put your libertarian thinking cap on. The Shuttle is big government at its worst. Good riddance.
More power to Rutan, XCOR, etc., too.
" David wrote:
That's what excites me about the private space companies - people are finally discovering things about space that are important enough that *they're* willing to do, rather than wish that someone else would do it."
I don't think any of the private space ventures proposed - the real ones that is, the companies who are actually cutting metal - are proposing to do anything really radical. SpaceX's goal, as I understand it, is to poach launch business away from Boeing and LockMart (and my hat's off to Elon Musk for trying, and making such a workmanlike attempt). But a large fraction of that business is ultimately paid for by the government (DoD or NASA).
"Brock wrote:
I wonder if the movie Armageddon made matters worse for NASA. Asteroid protection is a real concern that only space access can deal with, but maybe the public actually has the vague idea that NASA can always save us at the drop of a hat if necessary. As a public policy piece it might have been better if the world died at the end. The tagline could be "The rock came, and we weren't ready.""
I agree. And it's a real shame because asteroid/comet protection is the one overriding reason why we should maintain the ability to travel in space. A lot of people are mystified as to why we haven't returned to the moon in 36 years - they think it's simply a matter of flying the Shuttle there. They may also think that Bruce and his team are just waiting for the call to hop on that shuttle (the one with that mars rover which - curiously - was armed with a minigun) and, by God, get the job done.
Whereas us space buffs know that if NASA has to protect us from that rock with our number on it, we're screwed.
I think more generally, science fiction has deadened people's interest in actual space travel. The Apollo missions provided a vicarious thrill to millions of people. And a vicarious thrill is all that most people will ever get out of space exploration. But science fiction, from Star Trek on, has fullfilled that desire more effectively.
red: I can think of one benefit of space that you didn't touch on - you did pretty well IMHO. A frontier.
For perhaps most of the history of the USA and quite a few other countries, and therefore by extension the rest of the world too, there has been a wild frontier; somewhere where young men (historically it has always been mostly men) can risk getting themselves killed. When the last frontier, at least in the USA, was explored (maybe around 1915?) soon afterwards, for a large part of the 20th century, there were large-scale wars for those same people to take risks in.
It is probably no coincidence that the end of available risk was roughly coincident in time with the start of social breakdown and swiftly rising criminality, in the USA and elsewhere. It would appear that some people, for most of history mostly young men, need risk and will create it if it isn't already there. To sum it up, space is the High Frontier. (Yes, I know that is the title of a book!) Somewhere where one can take huge risks for huge reward if one survives.
Or at least it could be. After NASA is disbanded, and in my opinion not before.
"What other real needs does space access address that are potential drivers of funding?"
Resource utilization. First call it, "impact mitigation" and learn how to manipulate asteroids with orbital tractors. Then, say, "Oh snap, that asteroid we just learned to park in L1 is loaded with Platinum group elements. Who wants dibs?" Sell tracts of land on the asteroid to the highest bidder. Interested parties will in turn purchase or learn to build their own launch system.
> It is probably no coincidence that the end of available risk was roughly coincident in time with the start of social breakdown and swiftly rising criminality, in the USA and elsewhere.
Once again, reality and FC part company.
The "rising criminality" in the USA occurred with Prohibition and in the early 60s. Neither was "roughly coincident" with the loss of frontier.
Andy: I did actually mention the two wars (actually three, for the US) that served as a substitute after the frontier closed. But never mind; after all my stuff isn't worth reading before you say something contemptuous about it, eh?
Sure, Prohibition was a cause of criminality. However, it wasn't the cause of the sort of random criminality I was really talking about; burglary going through the roof, random violent assaults and so on. Nor, I suspect, did it really make that much difference in terms of the total crime rate, although what it did cause was pretty spectacular.
It's also quite likely that the illegal drugs industry is the cause of much criminality these days. Two points about that; obviously the USA learned nothing from the mess that Prohibition caused, and the sort of people that form the footsoldiers of the illegal drugs trade get into it, to some extent, because it's their only hope of getting out of the swamp. Desperate people do desperate things - not that it's an excuse.