Though this MIT report on the future of human spaceflight came out a few weeks ago, I haven’t yet taken the time to read it, other than to read through the summary, which I found underwhelming. Fortunately, Jim Oberg has, and explains why I did in today’s issue of The Space Review:
…it promotes some non-historic and deeply troubling myths of space policy that have led to grief in the past and, if accepted for future decisions, could serve as a roadmap for frustration and disaster.
Fundamentally, the sense of the report remains torn between opposing goals: using space in the “best interest of the United States”, and using space in the best interests of the world as a whole.
First, it falls for the classic wish-fulfillment fantasy that playing nice together in space—forming partnerships on significant space projects—can actually compel terrestrial nations to become more friendly to each other despite deep-seated conflicting goals. Second, the report promotes the view that the cost of large space projects can only be afforded if they are shared by an international alliance—contrary to all experience, including that of the ISS, that splitting national responsibilities for integrated projects makes them more expensive, not less. And thirdly, it promotes a dangerously diversionary and dead-ended theory for the root cause of space disasters such as the loss of the shuttle Columbia and its crew: that there was just not enough money, a factor that can easily be fixed by budgetary largesse. Using such views as foundations for policy decisions in the coming years can only result in more waste, more losses, and a lot more tears.
There are also lesser issues, which can be dealt with in a follow-on review. Fundamentally, the sense of the report remains torn between opposing goals: using space in the “best interest of the United States”, and using space in the best interests of the world as a whole. While not a zero-sum game, “space leadership” does tend to benefit those who have it over those who do not, mainly in curtailing options to the secondary players and compelling dependent status on them for important space functions (think GPS). And while selling a policy aimed at benefiting the paying country (the US) may have domestic political value, too nationalistic a sales job at home could make selling it to potential partners more awkward.
Yes, such reports by academics often have this aerie-faerie, kumbaya quality that is divorced from real history or the real world, as I noted a few years ago. As Oberg points out, this politically correct fetish for internationalism for internationalism’s sake has actually held us back and cost us more than going it alone would have, despite claims (i.e., false rationalizations) to the contrary. But as he also notes, there’s always another danger to these kinds of groupthink reports:
The report’s treatment of spaceflight safety is inexplicably muddled, considering the talent available to the group.
Ignoring the factual inaccuracies, I think that muddling is an almost inevitable consequence of report-by-committee, because it’s always hard to get full agreement and consensus on such things, and it can fall prey to the Committee Effect. I’m wondering how it was actually done. Was it a bunch of inputs that were stitched together, or did one person sit down, take the inputs provided, and try to put together a coherent story? The latter is much more difficult (for that one person) but the former rarely provides a coherent (or consistent or fully accurate) narrative. In any event, like most space policy reports of this kind (see Commission Report, Aldridge), it will simply be put on the shelf to collect dust. Which, in this case, might not be the worst thing.
The MIT Study is limited to reasons for spending tax dollars on human space exploration and the authors state that since there is nothing in space than can be returned to Earth at a profit (compare Elon Musk’s comments about crack cocaine in LEO) other reasons for spending tax dollars need to be identified.
Concerning international cooperation, I would first observe that ITAR reform would be the quickest route forward for achieving what the MIT Study calls for.
Framing ITAR reform as being consistent with the MIT Study could be a politically beneficial step.
Next, Project Apollo was motivated by the need to demonstrate our technological superiority over the Soviets and it succeeded at that purpose marvelously. However once we beat the USSR to the Moon (Apollo 11) the benefits of continuing on were minimal and support waned considerably.
Today, there is no need to demonstrate the superiority of US military technology. That is a given. Therefore more flags & footprints mission serve no real purpose.
But there also isn’t an obvious source of profit, so why spend tax dollars on human space exploration?
Once answer would be that if we facilitate European, or Indian or Chinese space ambitions which they undertake for their own sense of national pride (compare Bigelow’s thoughts on creating an international astronaut corps) the US can enhance its reputation as a “team player” and that can enhance our diplomatic capital.
Will this advance genuine space development?
Probably not, but it is a reason to continue taxpayer funded human spaceflight.
Even assuming that’s a valid justification, if Bigelow is doing it, why do we need to spend taxpayers’ money on it?
Having read the MIT Study in detail, I believe one underlying motivation of the report is to fashion arguments as to why the Democrats shouldn’t simply cancel NASA human spaceflight altogether.
I often argue with my fellow Democrats – in defense of NASA’s budget – by pointing out that if Obama simply canceled all taxpayer funded US human spaceflight FOX News would begin running a daily ticker counting how long it had been since America lost the ability to put people in space. Therefore, even a liberal who thinks human spaceflight is a total waste of money needs to support NASA for cynical reasons.
Prestige is the only reason I can come up with for why governments should spend tax dollars on human spaceflight. At ~$8.5 billion per year (the human half of NASA) I am entirely okay with that.
Genuine space development shall require a profitable business case and as of today no one has ever actually accomplished that, even if various promising possibilities are out there.
I have half a thought: Cassini would have been canceled, as CRAF if the US didn’t have an obligation to Europe to support the Huygens mission. The result has been a fantastic pair of missions. Generally, we don’t want to hog-tie our own country, but in this case, I’m glad we did. The lesson, I suppose, is that international obligations can promote bolster long-term expensive commitments and mitigate our tendency to only work for short-term goals.
Ideally, the ESA and NASA could split the cost of future missions rather than just donating hardware, but that’s impossible politically as an exchange of cash across borders is unacceptable — local jobs and local industries have to be supported. Still, my understanding is that cooperation with the ESA didn’t raise the cost of Cassini (or did it?), and of course, it saved us from having to build Huygens.
Should have read: Cassini would have been canceled, as CRAF was …
But that’s also the problem with international missions. You can’t cancel them easily when they run out of control as the ISS did.
I think a couple of obvious needs for a human presence is the testing of human physiology in 0 G (which to be honest, we do have a lot of data about) and more importantly the testing of human tools and support equipment in space. Maybe we could put a space station in orbit for testing these things.
I think history has proven international competition is better for manned spaceflight than international cooperation. Wouldn’t it be interesting if SpaceX beats Russia and China on a successful manned lunar flyby??
…since there is nothing in space than can be returned to Earth at a profit…
I would challenge that statement (typical lack of imagination.)
Once people live in space they will have access to assets that make the Earth seem impoverished.
People on Earth can participate in public trading of stock in off world companies and thus participate in that profit.
Deflecting a world killing rock might profit the Earth.
My favorite… space flicks filmed in real free fall.
Video games seem to be recession proof.
Information defies gravity. Entertainment is a multi billion dollar industry. The Earth will remain a major market in the near future.
Food and energy from space may allow a greater population on the Earth someday, although I admit this might not be consider a profit of any kind.
I might become interested in sports if low and zero g.