Commercial space advocates have often complained that NASA tends to put a stick in the spokes of attempts to raise money and get ventures off the ground. Critics claim that this is a fantasy, and that NASA is both uninterested in, and incapable of doing such a thing. Jeff Foust points out the latest example of the “fantasy”:
[Here’s] a passage in a Wall Street Journal article this week (subscription required) about Virgin Galactic’s deal to sell a stake to an Abu Dhabi fund:
However, a NASA official cautioned that venturing into space is extremely costly, dangerous and difficult.
“Everyone has the opinion ‘we can do this’ but I’ve seen so many fail,” he said, adding that running a shuttle costs at least $3 billion a year.
All this is true: spaceflight is difficult and not cheap, and many ventures who have tried it before have failed. But what does the operating cost of the shuttle have to do with a suborbital space tourism system?
Absolutely nothing, of course. But it helps sow the seeds of doubt in the mind of an investor who might not know any better. And of course, the clueless reporter doesn’t challenge the comment, but simply stenographs it as though it’s not a complete non sequitur. Because he or she got the valuable opinion of an unnamed NASA official, which is all that matters.
Jon got the same thing at the end of his New Scientist article on depots (http://is.gd/1W1QN):
“Others point to downsides of the plan. Rocket malfunctions are not uncommon, and the more launches are needed for each moon mission, the more likely it is that something will go wrong, a former senior NASA official told New Scientist.”
Under Goldin it was more blatant. And I’m not sure I would blame the reporter as much as I’d blame the editor that insists all reporters include a counter-claim no matter how ridiculous it may be.
The term FUD suggests a willful desire to create the fear, uncertainty and doubt. A culture of ignorance (such as exists within NASA) can create the same effect, but it’s not as “morally bad” as deliberate FUD. And it’s a conspiracy.
Consider primary care physicians and statins. There’s no “conspiracy” among primary care physicians to prescribe these expensive drugs with terrible side effects and no benefit, but the culture of ignorance among Doctors continues to mislead people away from “investing” in the dietary solutions that would really cure them of CVD. Similar situation.
A culture of ignorance (such as exists within NASA) can create the same effect, but it’s not as “morally bad” as deliberate FUD.
That’s just a manifestation of Clark’s Law (J. Porter, not Arthur C.): “Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice.” It doesn’t matter whether or not it’s a conspiracy — it’s damaging regardless.
Let’s, for the moment, not argue over whether or not NASA (either as a corporate entity or as NASA employees acting as individuals from their fear of being bypassed on the way to the stars), creates FUD in an attempt to keep competitors off the playing field. And we should also admit that the NASA official is right—space is hard, and many commercial enterprises have come to the same rocks and shoals as many NASA enterprises (X-33, ISS delays, etc.)
Let’s instead simply admit that whatever NASA is (or is not) doing today or may (or may not) do in the future to shove “sticks in spokes”, NASA has in the past done exactly this–and worse. For let’s not forget the point in the 80s when all other US launcher programs were in the process of being shut down so as to not offend the Great God Shuttle. This disastrous policy, naturally, had to be changed in the wake of Challenger–but not before allowing Arianespace the market opening it needed. This is only the most egregious example of post-Apollo NASA seeking to be the Viceroy of All-things Space, the King of Denmark demanding tribute if one wished to pass the Skaggerak.
Therefore, it is not beyond the pale to think that in the near-future, when private manned spaceflight missions begin, that some in NASA, blithely ignoring their own checkered past of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia, will trot out their “concerns” of how hard manned spaceflight is (and it is hard, no doubts). But these concerns will not come as an attempt to have a rising tide float all boats, an attempt to hone an industry into a spacefaring civilization, but as an attempt to assassinate rivals for glory by creating doubts that any but NASA can do it.
In 1927 aeronautical technology had advanced to the point where the Orteig prize was within reach. There were many contestants, and many had political pull or influential supporters. But the guy who won was the one who had the lesser financial support and the least ability to rent-seek. He also had probably one of the less robust test plans and had a slightly unstable airplane with no forward visibility. But he knew what he was doing, and that was all that mattered.
Today, however, I fear that a modern Byrd or Chamberlin could pull strings and keep that “unstable and dangerous” Spirit of St Louis grounded—“for safety’s sake”. Meanwhile, their own equally “dangerous” planes would go forward. The world would never hear of Charles Lindbergh or any other kids from left field, but instead would keep on the path that only those with connections will ever get ahead.
There is a role for NASA in the Golden Age of Spaceflight that is coming. But the days of it having a monopoly are over, and it needs to get that message loud and clear. It is going to have to accept that many great firsts it covets may be won with it standing on the sidelines, or holding someone else’s coat. Such is the way of things. NASA had the playing field t itself for 40 years. That time is over.
FUD will not be tolerated, not from an agency that has killed 17 astronauts in accidents that can be very plausibly said to have been fairly preventable. There is no quicker path for NASA to go back to being NACA if it does so. FUD will not be tolerated.
You have to also take into account which NASA center that person is from. NASA is not monolithic. JPL, GSFC and those at KSC who procure ELV’s would not have those views.