More-than-occasional commenter Chuck Divine has a more extensive first-hand report from the panel discussion on space policy in Georgetown a few weeks ago.

On February 17, 2004, the Georgetown University Law Center hosted a panel discussion on the future of the U.S. space program. The panel consisted of Jim Muncy (Polispace), Col. Rick Searfoss (former astronaut), Edward L. Hudgins (Objectivist Center) and Robert Park (physicist and space critic). James Dunstan served as moderator.

Dunstan began the session with a review of the Bush space initiative. He covered the vision, the implementation, the budget and the politics. While discussing the budget, he noted that the plan calls for a total increase of $170 billion. In the near term there will be a $1 billion increase. Over 5 years an additional $26 billion will be budgeted.

Dunstan covered briefly political issues. Some in Congress view the new initiative negatively, some positively. There will be cutbacks to various centers ? this works against some political support, but in many ways is rational. The budget seems to make sense.

There is a real question as to whether NASA is up to the challenge. The GAO has stated that NASA is adrift on safety. The CAIB report was highly critical of the NASA culture. Dunstan noted that today various NASA codes are vying for supremacy in the new environment.

Hudgins presented a thoroughly libertarian take on the new initiative. He began by making several points:

• Humans have a desire to understand the universe around us.
• Only private entrepreneurs can bring down the cost of doing things in space.
• The essential element to getting the private sector involved is the development of private property rights in space.
• Government simply cannot open space to all.

Hudgins gave two reactions of his own. First, he thinks it great that NASA is getting back to exploration. But he also thinks that NASA can?t carry out the new plan?s goals.

Hudgins made a number of recommendations:

• NASA should be restricted to science and exploration.
• NASA functions that are not space related should be either shut down, privatized or turned over to other agencies.
• The shuttle and ISS should be spun off ASAP.
• Space commercialization acts should be enforced ? NASA should purchase services, not hardware.
• Deregulate as much as possible.
• Implement property rights in space.
• Look for innovative ways to do what NASA wants to do.

Rick Searfoss was the next speaker. He gave his background as being from the military. He spoke about the need for leadership and teamwork. His dream is become the director of operations for a space tourism business. He is strongly patriotic and for a free market. Searfoss expressed the view that private enterprise will soon blow open the door into space. Burt Rutan is doing exciting things. Small entrepreneurs will lead the way.

Searfoss noted that NASA ? according to the CAIB ? is seriously adrift. He commented that real leadership has been dormant too long. In his view what will work best is synergy between NASA and the private sector. Only modest new expenditures will be required. Searfoss is cautiously optimistic about the future.

Robert Park began his speech with a reference to 18th century Luddites holding back progress. Today he said we are exploring Mars by using robots. The real explorers are the people operating the machines. Park made several points:

• Robot senses are better than human.
• We can explore now ? not wait for humans to get there.
• Current space businesses are communication, weather and global positioning satellites.
• Humans would contaminate Mars if they went there, making it more difficult to find genuine Martian life.
• No space business has come from human space exploration.

Jim Muncy began by actually agreeing with Park to some extent. But, Muncy added, robots cannot create new life. Robots cannot feel or adapt as humans can. Humans need machines; machines need humans. Muncy commented that he grew up believing that NASA was opening space to humans. He also hopes that NASA will embrace the last chance being offered it by Bush?s plan. Muncy said this plan is really NASA?s last chance.

Muncy went on to define ten myths of the Bush space plan. The initiative:

• Will destroy Hubble synergies.
• Leaves us dependent on the Russians for the ISS. We already are dependent.
• Gives money to Boeing and Lockheed Martin. There will be less money for corporate profit centers.
• Kills ISS. NASA will focus instead on human adaptation to space.
• Is a political ploy. Canceling programs and putting people out of work is not a political ploy.
• Returning to the moon is boring. We should go straight to Mars. Muncy commented the plan is not a flags and footprints mission.
• Will cost a trillion dollars. No ? NASA must be transformed. This could be hard to do.
• Robots are better and cheaper. Humans are not just about learning science. This initiative supports the full range of human endeavors.
• This is just about science. No ? the endeavor and space are about all things humans do.
• And finally, it?s about NASA. Muncy noted that, for Eisenhower, space was about science and technology. Kennedy saw it differently. He viewed space as being about the human race and Americans in particular. Muncy noted that the noted explorers Lewis and Clark were charged with expanding human commerce ? all of human activity.

After Muncy?s brief presentation, the floor was opened to questions.

The first question raised was the Bush plan about maintaining space supremacy. Muncy replied that the proposal was really about free nations working together for mutual benefits. Hudgins indicated he wants to see a supremacy of principles.

The second question asked, in light of the fact that the Mars rover cost $1 billion, what would the cost of a human mission be. Muncy commented he didn?t how much it will cost. He added one real reform is the most important part of the agenda: NASA will now buy services. Hudgins compared the cost of a deep sea rover with the Mars rover.

The third question raised the issue of the fact that there are only a few places where humans can personally go in the solar system. In light of that fact, shouldn?t we go to Mars? Park recommended taking care of this planet first.

Ron Cowen of Space News raised the question of how the current plan differs from the earlier President Bush?s plans. Searfoss commented that the SEI proposal was representative of the old NASA. The huge budget proposed killed the plan. The new plan calls for significant change. Dunstan commented the old plan called for everything that NASA had requested. The new plan notes that ISS is not sustainable and old dinosaurs should be eliminated. Park commented that the research community opposed both ISS and shuttle.

The next question queried whether NASA was ready to go commercial. Dunstan was disappointed that Goddard was chosen to lead the Moon part of the mission. He added a focus on business and making money was necessary.

Ian Pryke asked about impediments for international partners. Dunstan observed there were two problems. The first was political: NASA doesn?t work well with others. The second was legal: the Iran nonproliferation act bans certain kinds of activities. Searfoss said the agency worked well with the Russians. Muncy noted the ISS was not about opening space to all people ? it was about spreading the financial burden.

The last question raised whether or not nongovernmental international cooperation was already happening. Muncy stated that it was. He added that there was a need to create the legal framework to allow and promote international cooperation.