Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

An interesting historical twist is that 425,000 is also approximately the same number of jobs that it required to put Apollo on the moon.
Lord help us if it takes that many the second time round.

Space exploration cannot be outdone when it comes to a return on the investment of tax dollars. That NASA money is not sent into space. It pays the salaries of some of our smartest and most productive people right here on earth. Will somebody please present that fact to the Mr. Kerry?
This might be one of the few areas where I agree with Rand. "Productive" is an interesting description of NASA's current human spaceflight offerings.

Does John Kerry realize that space exploration is the single most important activity as far as ... the future of all earth-based life is concerned?
False by definition. Space exploration is of single most importance to potential space based life - which should be the aim, IMHO.

If he picks Senator Nelson (D-FL) for the ticket (strong rumors to this effect), then you might hear something about space exploration. So if you want a presidential campaign on space exploration, you had better hope that Bush's current pathetic showing in the Florida polls persists.

Maybe Rand is trying to help offset the little problem? : )

Posted by Duncan Young at March 9, 2004 09:18 AM

> I offer the following starter questions for the
> candidate to answer. Does he favor robotic
> space exploration over human exploration?

"Generally yes" would be the appropriate answer from an intelligent candidate... Apollo cost something like $100 billion in today's dollars and produced some interesting science plus a rather questionable manned space transportation "infrastructure" (KSC, JSC and other NASA centers & facilities) that has subsisted well into the Shuttle/Station era. In contrast, $100 billion would buy you a lot of planetary probes, unmanned scientific satellites, space-based telescopes etc.. Park, van Allen et al. are absolutely right when saying unmanned space science is much more cost effective. IIRC, NASA's science budget (which paid for all the Mariners, Vikings, Pioneers, Surveyors etc.) is usually in the $1-2 billion/year range. Yet the breathtaking discoveries we've made since Sputnik 1 have mostly been thanks to unmanned spacecraft, and virtually all the commercially useful applications derive from unmanned satellites as well.

Now, I think there is a place for both manned and unmanned space exploration -- but there is no question the latter is far more important than the former.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 9, 2004 09:44 AM

Duncan, Thanks for the feedback. We will probably continue to disagree about a lot of things since I am an incurable optimist. Rand and I frequently look through opposite ends of the telescope. He sees things small and dark and I see the same objects big and bright. I am OK with that and I have the highest regard for Rand as a writer and opinion giver.

I heard the estimate of one million total jobs created over the 30-35 years of the Bush Moon/Mars program. Total NASA employment peaked at about 420,000 in 1966. That kind of figure will probably not be seen, if ever again, for a long time. Many of those 420,000 jobs were created by the Apollo ramp up requirements and the jobs were not required for Apollo operations. Keep in mind that in 1966 NASA was concurrently running two manned programs, Gemini and Apollo. Those were exciting days.

I agree that NASA workers are not as "productive" as they were during the 1960s. That is not necessarily the worker's fault. They need to be unleashed from the bureaucratic chains that hinder productivity. Early NASA was exempt from the idiotic and counter-productive civil service regulations that lower the production potential of an agency. People were hired because it was felt that they could do the job back in those days. A lot of NASA's best and brightest did not hold proper degrees or certificates. NASA hires some very smart people today. Unfortunately, many of them either leave for greener pastures or settle into the reigning regimen of lowered expectations.

We may be on different frequencies when it comes to, "the future of all earth-based life". From the lowest algae to the brightest human on earth, we are all sitting on a cosmic target. The destruction of earth life through catastrophic loss of the biosphere is a certainty even if we recycle everything and protect habitats and all of the other "tree hugger" behaviors. We can delay the accumulation of residuals in out biosphere, but we cannot prevent the inevitable asteroid collisions to come at some point in our future. All things must pass, including our biosphere. I realize that the end is probably far, far away, but I do care about my children's, children's children.

Bill Nelson? The last Vice-President who had anything other than a negligible affect on space policy was LBJ. Nixon had Haldeman meet with Spiro Agnew to chew him out and to order him to shut his mouth about going to Mars. VPs have "microgravity" influence and people don't vote for VPs. Besides, if Florida is so critical a state, what is to stop Bush from nominating Jeb as his VP? Jeb, a popular governor with more direct clout in Florida state politics would probably outdo Nelson in Fla.

Thanks, Jim

Posted by Jim McDade at March 9, 2004 10:21 AM

Marcu$, I appreciate your point of view. I also respectfully disagree with those who would send a digital camera, thermometer and assorted lab equipment to do a job that is much better done by human explorers. I am aware that the cost-based point of view that you share with others appears to make sense at first glance, but to me the purpose of remote probes is primarily to serve as scouts for the people that will come later to perform the job much better.

To some people the space program is viewed primarily as a quest for knowledge. Those little robots do a pretty good job of sending back useful information. The quest for knowledge is extremely important. For me, and for millions of others, the purpose of exploration is much broader in scope than the quest for knowledge. Exploration satisfies a wired-in human urge to assure the survival of life. I do not think that it is only a coincidence that each wave of exploration and settlement always results in eventual general improvement of the human condition and the casting off of tyrannies from the "Old World" order.

Robots? Well, they are cute and they send back lots of pretty pictures... BUT, shipping my video camera to Hawaii with instructions for someone over there to shoot some video and mail it back to me is not the same as me going there and exploring the sights, sounds, and beauty of that paradise. As Gene Cernan said, "Man must explore." My ancestors were explorers. I guess that the spirit of exploration is in my blood.

It would also be a very bad thing, public relations wise, for NASA to abandon human exploration in favor of robots. Televised scenes of "science geeks" squealing with delight in Pasadena when the first transmission arrives from the latest Mars probe does not register resoundingly with the majority of taxpayers. On the other hand, the public instantly recognizes Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin or Gene Kranz as major American heroes. James Van Allen could walk onto the field at the Super Bowl or the World Cup and nobody would recognize him. Ordinary people identify with the human beings who hang their rear-ends out over the edge. That is why a movie like Apollo 13 makes a fortune in ticket sales while the wonderful success stories from JPL come to us in the form of streaming web video or boring NASA TV bits.

Respectfully, Jim

Posted by Jim McDade at March 9, 2004 10:39 AM

> Total NASA employment peaked at about 420,000
> in 1966. That kind of figure will probably not
> be seen, if ever again, for a long time.

By "NASA employment", I assume you mean private contractor personnel + NASA civil servants? I don't think the combined Shuttle/Station program has ever surpassed 100,000 employees, so it seems quite unlikely that the new program (which apparently will be financed mostly by money taken from STS/ISS) will require a bigger staff.

> Many of those 420,000 jobs were created by the
> Apollo ramp up requirements and the jobs were
> not required for Apollo operations.

If memory serves, the Apollo/Saturn effort was down to about 200,000 jobs when they started to shut down the production lines.

> Keep in mind that in 1966 NASA was concurrently
> running two manned programs, Gemini and Apollo.

Gemini was comparatively negligible in this regard (~$7 billion total cost in FY 1999 dollars, vs. ~$100B for Apollo).

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 9, 2004 10:41 AM

I got the 420,000 employee figure from a July 1969 article written by the MSFC Director at that time:

http://24.73.239.154:8081/moonshot/images/archive/vbart.jpg

You might enjoy seeing some of my 1969 print media collection at:
http://24.73.239.154:8081/moonshot/summer_of_69.htm

- Jim

Posted by Jim McDade at March 9, 2004 10:51 AM

...shipping my video camera to Hawaii with instructions for someone over there to shoot some video and mail it back to me is not the same as me going there and exploring the sights, sounds, and beauty of that paradise.

You do realize that is exactly what the President's Initiative is.

Just to clarify - there are some circumstances where I think human-assisted exploration would be more cost effective than robotic - the exploration of the Martian deep crust for one.

However, if you want to go yourself (unless you have three degrees, excellent health and perfect teeth), you better hope that Rand and the alt-spacers are right. I'm skeptical - but I want them to have every chance to prove me wrong.

Respectfully,
Duncan

Posted by Duncan Young at March 9, 2004 10:58 AM

>> shipping my video camera to Hawaii with
>> instructions for someone over there to shoot
>> some video and mail it back to me is not the
>> same as me going there and exploring the
>> sights, sounds, and beauty of that paradise.

> You do realize that is exactly what the
> President's Initiative is.

Bingo! I am not saying another series of manned lunar missions would not be "exciting" or that they would not produce some interesting science. I personally think these arguments merit a relatively modest, publicly financed human spaceflight program. But it is difficult indeed to see how the President's new initiative will be any more significant than Apollo was, since it will involve extremely expensive expendable launch vehicle/spacecraft technology costing, perhaps, half a billion dollars per crewman landed on the lunar surface...
It's not like Columbus or even the early 20th century polar expeditions, which cost much less (relatively speaking) and involved far more human "explorers" from all walks of life while yielding much bigger benefits to society.
---
As much as I disagree with Greg Easterbrook, I think he has a point the Administration should begin with reducing the enormous cost of human spaceflight. For example, by proposing a low cost, rapid space-access reusable launch vehicle along the lines of the 1991 BMDO efforts. Without cheaper human space access, the new lunar initiative will be only so much window-dressing.

> It would also be a very bad thing, public
> relations wise, for NASA to abandon human
> exploration in favor of robots. Televised
> scenes of "science geeks" squealing with
> delight in Pasadena when the first transmission
> arrives from the latest Mars probe does not
> register resoundingly with the majority of
> taxpayers.

Yesyesyes...and I am sure a bunch of Harrison Schmitts would beam back for more martian data from Gusev crater than any robotic probe would. But the key question remains: will taxpayers really prefer to spend a hundred times as much on space science entertainment "with astronaut content" if small robotic landers can beam back a reasonable amount of pictures and data much more cheaply?! Remember: most taxpayers are lukewarm space fans at best. Propose to spend hundreds of billions over many decades as opposed to hundreds of millions over a few years, and they will start complaining about misplaced priorities. It is already happening the the President's space initative.
---
Besides, you seem to almost entirely ignore the "what is good for?" argument. You talk about the human urge to colonize new worlds but none of this will happen as long as each lunar ticket costs half a billion dollars... You will only get another series of flags & footprints plus some interesting science from the lunar surface. But there will be no commercial exploitation of planetary resources or human colonies at those prices, any more than the $100 billion+ spent on Apollo spawned an interplanetary civilization...

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 9, 2004 11:32 AM

Jim -
First things first - welcome aboard.

On the subject of Kerry's space ploicy, I think it's safe to say he's not going to put a lot of emphasis on it. One of the things I like about the Bush plan is that it's likely to be robust in the face of changes of administration. Details will shift, but the basic idea ought to remain in place. It's possible Kerry will dump manned flight altogether (or move in that direction), but I think the need to send pork to Florida will prevent that. Space just isn't a priority for most people, and Kerry's policy positions will reflect that.

The biggest risk to the Bush plan, in my opinion, is the massive and growing budget deficit. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are all pretty safe due to the fact that the beneficiaries vote in disproportionate numbers. That leaves discretionary spending. When the crisis comes (and it will), cuts will have to be made throughout the discretionary budget. Everyone's ox will get gored. The military is likely to see only modest cuts, but everything else will be on the chopping block. Whether the administration is Republican or Democratic, the cuts will have to come, and space is going to look like a juicy target. Even Bush doesn't have space as a major priority (witness the fact that he didn't mention his plan in the State of the Union speech), so if he's still president in a couple of years, he's likely to be the one making the cuts in NASA (barring a miraculous change in the economy or congressional spending habits).

Since my hopes lie with the alt.space crowd, I'm not too bothered by the possibility of severe cuts in NASA, which seem to me inevitable. My hope is that they'll just lead to a slip in the timeline for the Bush plan. We'll see.

Posted by Andrew Case at March 9, 2004 12:30 PM

Marcu$, You said "Remember: most taxpayers are lukewarm space fans at best. Propose to spend hundreds of billions over many decades as opposed to hundreds of millions over a few years, and they will start complaining about misplaced priorities. It is already happening the the President's space initative."

I can't disagree with any of the above. Your comments point toward what I perceive to be the primary reason why US space exploration has fallen short of the high expectations put forth by many optimistic voices of the 1960s. The lack of visionary leadership coming from the White House over the years has been very detrimental to an agency that soars or falls according to the whims of the person who happens to be sitting in the White House. NASA is an creature of the Executive branch of government.

The "war time" pace, sense of purpose and white-hot intensity of the Project Apollo years resulted in fantastic results in an incredibly short span of time. Those spectacular results created unrealistic expectations in light of the fact that Presidents LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Daddy, Clinton either did not or could not provide the kind of strong space leadership that most advocates of space exploration expected them to provide.

Public disappointment with post-Apollo NASA was naturally followed by the blend of cynicism and negativity toward space that contributes to that "lukewarm" public support that you described. NASA is in dire need of strong, purposeful leadership from within and without the agency. Somebody needs to forcefully trample the boundaries of bureaucracy, politics, and the scientific community and push, pull and drag NASA back on course.

Meanwhile, Congress does need to enact legislation that will facilitate entrepreneurial space enterprises. However, some of the larger tasks are best left to government.

We can't expect access to space to become any less expensive if we kill progress by shutting down NASA human spaceflight activities until we invent a "cheaper" ride. Progress requires continuous effort and many iterations of development. We have to keep pushing. The Wright Brothers frequently read commentaries that downplayed the potential of their invention. Some critics claimed that safe and affordable passenger air travel was impossible. To expect NASA to stop flying until space travel is cheaper would be like telling the Wright's to quit building "aeroplanes" until you can build and deliver a fleet of Boeing 747s.

Posted by Jim McDade at March 9, 2004 12:53 PM

Or you could vote Kucinich (Link will rot)

"NASA needs three times its current budget to properly push space exploration out of Earth orbit to other moons and worlds, according to Ohio congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis J. Kucinich."

Or here for the full thing.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 9, 2004 12:55 PM

The Wrights != NASA

Rand has a lecture on Dr. Langley for you somewhere.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 9, 2004 12:58 PM

As I just informed Andrew Case: I guess I am one of those people who has always been convinced that space exploration is something that we cannot afford not to do. - Jim

Posted by Jim McDade at March 9, 2004 01:03 PM

Jim, I'm on your side re:

...US global leadership in space exploration is a vital national interest?....space exploration is the single most important activity as far as the future of humanity and the future of all earth-based life is concerned?

...but, how do we convince anyone of that?

Posted by billg at March 9, 2004 01:21 PM

Bill, NASA isn't getting the word out as effectively as they could. NASA has some smart and talented folks working in public affairs but they are stuck in an employment environment that fails to maximize their potential. In my opinion, NASA center directors should be required to write newspaper and magazine articles the way Wernher von Braun did during his career.

The President made a nice space speech in January, but he is certainly no Winston Churchill or even JFK when it comes to oration. A lot of terrific writers (e.g. Oberg, Chaikin, Zubrin, even Simberg), are putting out the message, but we live in a time and place where books play third or fourth fiddle when it comes to mass communications. Most people get their daily dose of science and space exposure from Hollywood movie features, the Sci-Fi Channel and UPN.

It's mostly up to people like you and me to sell REAL space exploration, face-to-face, one individual at a time if necessary. I spoke to several hundred students last week and I will address several hundred more this week. I go on local radio, David Livingston's THE SPACE SHOW and on local TV when invited to appear. (I have a "radio face", so I am more comfortable with the radio.)

Marie Curie once said, "Humanity needs practical men, who get the most out of their work, and, without forgetting the general good, safeguard their own interests. But humanity also needs dreamers, for whom the disinterested development of an enterprise is so captivating that it becomes impossible for them to devote their care to their own material profit."

Ask yourself. Are you primarily a practical man or a dreamer? It is OK to be a part-time dreamer like I am. This part-time job does not pay, but the satisfaction level is priceless. - Jim

Posted by Jim McDade at March 9, 2004 01:51 PM

Robotic exploration, absent any consideration of humans, is actually fairly unimportant. The axiom that one geologist could do in a day what both of the current Mars rovers will do in their operational lifetimes is a valid one.

And, of course, a lot of commercial ventures (say, tourism) and settlements simply don't work without humans.

In reference to "lukewarm" public support for human space exploration. A lot of that has to do with the wording of poll questions. Inevitably they pit space with some other worthy area, like education (Would you rather spend money on sending people to Mars or on education?) The problem is that whether or not Americans ever go to Mars, American government on all levals will spend hundreds of billions of dollars on education every year. It won't go away, no matter what the opponents of space exploration will tell you.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at March 9, 2004 02:06 PM

Since NASA clearly is non-priority to Kerry, I think it's easy to predict what will become of Bush's space initiative. Merely because the space exploration initiative IS connected to Bush, Kerry will kill it with relish and the Democratic party will applaud him. Plus I can see policy under Kerry returning to the overt hostility towards private space ventures we are so familiar with.

Posted by Brad at March 10, 2004 12:50 AM

I've done my bit in the selling of space to the general public. Besides writing for various publications, I've given speeches, sat on panels and even organized successful events like NJ Spaceday. All this has some positive impact -- but not nearly enough.

Currently we have a space program oriented to pleasing one person -- the President of the United States. If he doesn't really give a damn, the program goes nowhere (witness Clinton and Goldin). The current program has become quite dysfunctional and bureaucratic. Yes, good people still work in the industry. Let's face it, the pull of the dream is enough to get really bright people to put up with a lot.

We need to break out of this trap. We need a better product to sell. NASA doesn't connect with the public at large as much of anything except cool entertainment.

There still is a lot of potential within NASA. But until NASA is reformed, the potential will be wasted. We need a NASA that will go more than half way in connecting with the public. We need a flexible, responsive agency that will go out and find ways of meeting real needs of real people. It can be done. It just isn't being done at present -- at least all that well.

Posted by Chuck Divine at March 10, 2004 06:31 AM

Chuck and Brad, Interesting thoughts. I have always emphasize my desire to take the politics out of space exploration and NASA. For better or worse, space and politics are historically connected at the hip.

John Kennedy used the perceived space and missile gap against Vice-President Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential campaign. Although we have learned that JFK probably did not care as much about space as we were led to believe, JFK did give us the Apollo Program.

The first NASA-related political scandal to make headlines was the Bobby Baker mess. Baker was a power broker in the democrat party who used his position to manipulate NASA vendor contract awards. Later, President Richard Nixon was determined to cancel Saturn V production and end the moon landings as soon as possible after he was took the oath of office in 1969. Some people contend that Nixon despised the Apollo Program because it was essentially a monument to the memory of JFK.

Former Vice-President Walter Mondale exploited the tragic Apollo 1 fire to establish his national political profile when he was a US Senator. More recently, the John Glenn return to flight mission was marred by charges of political manipulation and wheeling and dealing to get Glenn that Shuttle ride.

There is plenty of evidence to incriminate both Republicans and Democrats in plots to exploit NASA and/or national space policy for personal gain. I hope that we human space exploration advocates will set aside our individual political differences and focus on seeing that all incumbent and candidate office holders receive our message loud and clear.

Personally, I don't care if a supporter of space exploration is a radical environmentalist from northern California or an avid Confederate battle re-enactor from southern Georgia. I can handle the political diversity of a free society.

I agree that NASA is badly in need of an organizational overhaul. I don't mean necessarily firing a bunch of people and hiring new ones. NASA people are generally good and fine people who have the best of intentions and they want to maximize their individual and team potential. Sean O'Keefe has implemented some positive changes in the agency but I still agree with Chuck that NASA "doesn't connect with the
public at large as much of anything". - Jim

Posted by Jim McDade at March 10, 2004 07:09 AM

> On the subject of Kerry's space ploicy, I think
> it's safe to say he's not going to put a lot of
> emphasis on it.

What President would do that, anyway... Nixon, Reagan and Clinton will mostly be remembered by space historians for starting / redirecting the manned space program to some extent. But their involvement quickly ended after the initial go-ahead had been given. None of the aforementioned three Presidents really talked a lot about "their" space program during the rest of their term in office.

> One of the things I like about the Bush plan is
> that it's likely to be robust in the face of
> changes of administration. Details will shift,
> but the basic idea ought to remain in place.

And, pray tell, how is this any different from Shuttle/Station?

> The biggest risk to the Bush plan, in my
> opinion, is the massive and growing budget
> deficit.

Indeed! The manned lunar exploration initiative itself may not be such a bad idea, but the Administration has really managed to shoot itself in the foot by proposing to increase NASA's budget while simultaneously running up year-in year-out budget deficits that appear to be at least 4-5% for the next decade or so. Many libertarian small-government fiscal conservatives are just furious.

The second major blunder is the apparent inability or unwillingness to reveal to Congress the expected cost of the whole undertaking. When Nixon & Reagan proposed the Shuttle & Space Station respectively, they were willing (and able) to put a price tag on their pet project. Whether NASA once again would lowball the total cost is of course a different story. But at least the politicians in charge can show they know what they are doing, by putting a realistic cost cap on the project.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 10, 2004 08:28 AM

And, pray tell, how is this any different from Shuttle/Station?

It still has the possibility of resulting in something useful.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 10, 2004 08:35 AM

That's disingenuous, Marcus, particularly since (I think) you've been called on it before.

Both Shuttle and station were reasonably well-defined programs, to occur in a well-defined time frame, and thus amenable to cost estimates. The new initiative is not a "pet project"--it is simply the establishment of national goals to be carried out over decades, by means as yet unspecified. As I point out in a post today, it's a little unreasonable for Congress to set standards of specificity and cost for such goals that they don't demand of (failed) social programs such as Medicare.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 10, 2004 08:40 AM

Jim writes:

>> Later, President Richard Nixon was determined to cancel Saturn V production and end the moon landings as soon as possible after he was took the oath of office in 1969. Some people contend that Nixon despised the Apollo Program because it was essentially a monument to the memory of JFK.

Posted by Bill White at March 10, 2004 11:56 AM

The foregoing quote is why we cannot afford to launch a new space program as a monument to George W. Bush. If this vision is to be sustained for decades, as Rand rightfully calls for, the vision needs to have authentic bi-partisan ownership.

Posted by Bill White at March 10, 2004 11:58 AM

If "authentic bi-partisan ownership" is a requirement for going to Mars, we might as well forget that quest now. NASA is a hierarchical child of the Executive Branch of government. The President, not Congress is the leader of national space policy and the President appoints the NASA administrator. Congress merely plays the role of supporter or obstructor of national space policy in the spirit of "checks and balances" ascribed to by our government.

Getting people to Mars will require up to five or more Presidential administrations and quite a few generations of Congress.

Richard Nixon was a petty and egocentric man. This nation needs leaders who will put aside useless bickering over "ownership" of NASA goals. Sending humans to Mars is a project that will require two or three decades to complete. George W. Bush may die of old age before the first humans arrive. This juvenile, partisan political bickering must stop or NASA will continue to spin its wheels while the rest of the world passes us by and leaves us stuck here in low-earth orbit.

Perhaps this nation is well down the path toward third-world status as someone recently claimed. We are doing "it" to ourselves. - Jim

Posted by Jim McDade at March 10, 2004 01:24 PM

> Both Shuttle and station were reasonably
> well-defined programs, to occur in a
> well-defined time frame, and thus amenable
> to cost estimates. The new initiative is
> not a "pet project"--it is simply the
> establishment of national goals to be carried
> out over decades, by means as yet unspecified.

I disagree with your definition. The Shuttle did have a somewhat well-defined scope since it was supposed to become operational in about 1978-79 and be retired in 1990 after 500 or so missions. But President Reagan's space station "vision" was every bit as "open-ended" as the current lunar initiative. True, the first launch was eight years in the future (vs. 10 years for this program), but Reagan/NASA were also talking about a 30-year in-orbit lifetime with almost limitless options (in-orbit servicing of spacecraft, staging base for missions to higher orbits, space manufacturing, commercial materials research, life sciences etc.).
---
It seems the Administration already has prepared a preliminary 15-year budget plan, much as NASA was doing back in 1972 and 1984 when planning the Shuttle & Space Station, respectively. Considering the huge number of Moon/Mars studies performed to date (including some fairly recent ones such as NeXT and OASIS), it's a bit strange O'Keefe & co. don't have more facts and figures to throw around.

I think it is perfectly natural some Congresscritters and special interests are worried because of the lack of information. For example, we already know other NASA efforts will be raided to pay for the manned lunar effort. What is the likely impact on aeronautics research? Will e.g. space-based astronomy and sun/earth observation be scaled back as a result of the Administration's priorities? We don't know, but a careful reading of the FY 2005-09 budget suggests this indeed might be the case.

> it's a little unreasonable for Congress to set
> standards of specificity and cost for such
> goals that they don't demand of (failed) social
> programs such as Medicare.

But most taxpayers/voters regard Medicare as far more important... And, as I pointed out earlier, the space community also needs to know the likely cost since the Administration claims *existing* space programs will be raided to pay for this.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 10, 2004 03:06 PM

I would surrender Hubble without a fight =if= I believed it assured us of getting to the Moon/Mars. Whether that trade is necessary to get to the Moon/Mars is another question altogether,

On the other hand, if asked to choose return to the Moon by 2020 if necessarily combined with Dana Rohrbacher's stated desire to end all climate study satellite programs (for example) then, I say NO, lets just stay here a while longer. ;-)

IMHO its not either / or and should not be presented that way. I also oppose raiding other NASA science programs without some strong assurance that Project Constellation will not end its life as vaporware on some engineer's CAD program.

With two Presidential election cycles between now and CEV man-rating (2008 then 2012 then CEV man-rating in 2014; make that 3 with 11/04) neither President Bush nor Sean O'Keefe can promise Constellation won't be cut by the next Administraions.

= = =

Anyway, the period 2004 - 2008 just is not that crucial. In some ways GWB's vision renders him a "lame duck" on space policy issues whether he is elected in 2004 or not. Lets review what is predicted to happen between 2004 and 2008

Shuttle returns to service and we work towards ISS completion.

Okay, suppose President Kerry cancels ISS outright and the orbiter never flies again. How many tears will Rand Simberg shed over that? Some people say Cheney pushed hard to do exactly that and NASA balked.

Suppose President Kerry follows the CAIB and a bunch of ISS components are lifted up between 2005 and 2008 - - well isn't that exactly what GWB intends to do? ISS cannot be completed by 2008 no matter what, so no difference there.

Modest seed money is budgeted for CEV. The real money for Project Constellation doesn't start flowing until after ISS complete and orbiter put down, right?

Shuttle needs to be replaced no matter what. President Kerry may change the name back to OSP (or DSP for Dummycrat Space Plane) but modest seed money will be spent in the years 2004 - 2008 on a shuttle replacement no matter who is President.

Okay, tell me guys, under the Bush vision what else really happens between now and January 2009 besides what I described above?

The "vision" of the man elected in 2008 is significantly more critical than the "vision" of the man elected in 2004, unless someone were to do something radical right now (like use shuttle C to turbocharge ISS completion and then carry CEV to Moon/Mars).

America's best hope for actually getting to the Moon and Mars lies in electing strong popular pro-space Presidents in 2008, 2012 and 2016. If we do that, November 2004 just ain't that important, either way.

The best thing George W. Bush can do for space is groom a protege with a strong vision for space because all the key events will occur after GWB's watch is over.

Posted by Bill White at March 10, 2004 04:33 PM

Marcus, from way back:

"Now, I think there is a place for both manned and unmanned space exploration -- but there is no question the latter is far more important than the former."

You're entitled to an opinion on what is more important, but to say there is no question is just ridiculous. You have to know that many disagree with that statement.

Jim:

"Getting people to Mars will require up to five or more Presidential administrations and quite a few generations of Congress."

I liked quite a bit of what you said, but there we disagree - I think that mindset is exactly the problem. I believe NASA will play a part, but when people get to Mars, it won't be because OF NASA. From Challenger to Columbia I see a system that has become much worse, and see no reason to think it will somehow magically improve now.

Posted by VR at March 10, 2004 04:41 PM

...juvenile, partisan political bickering must stop

The Soviet Union made great strides in spaceflight even though great poverty and corruption.

To paraphase the immortal Winston:
Democracy sucks - everything else just sucks a great deal more.

There are only a few ways of doing Big Things in a democracy: make it quick (see Apollo or Zubrin's argument for Mars Direct), make it prosaic (see the information superhighway or Rand's argument for space development), or shameless, sustained bribery (underrated, in my opinion; I suppose this is Jim's argument; see the Interstate Highway System for an example)

Posted by Duncan Young at March 10, 2004 07:13 PM

Duncan, IMHO, you are spot on.

Thats why I favor MarsDirect and/or bribing the hell out of the Dummycrats. Profit will follow after the ice gets broken, not before.

Project Constellations objective of slow, steady progress just wont work. As always, IMHO.

Posted by Bill White at March 10, 2004 08:09 PM

Why the conspiracy theory with universities?

As a (now unfunded) graduate student working on advanced launch concepts and applications, I'm not the only one who has been wondering why funding agencies don't believe in university research any more... Perhaps we should start dispatching droves of lobbyists to DC, though as a relatively small voting block that does not contribute large sums of money, I doubt we would be heard.

Could it be that university research is an infrastructure investment, without which the aerospace field is starved of expertise, fresh ideas, and eventally stagnates?

Posted by Kevin Parkin at March 11, 2004 01:55 AM

>> "Now, I think there is a place for both manned
>> and unmanned space exploration -- but there is
>> no question the latter is far more important
>> than the former."

> You're entitled to an opinion on what is more
> important, but to say there is no question is
> just ridiculous. You have to know that many
> disagree with that statement.

Small clarification: I meant unmanned space exploration/exploitation to date has been objectively more important to society (=produced more tangible benefits to taxpayers & investors) than Apollo/Shuttle/Station etc. ever were. I don't think any sensible person would agree otherwise. In most cases, the human spaceflight program has been an expensive underachiever whereas there has been enormous progress in unmanned satellite applications.

Now, this does not necessarily mean future projects such as a manned asteroid mining station would not be economically important. But we are not there yet -- and the President's new lunar initiative does not strike me as being primarily about low-cost access to space or in-situ resource utilization of space resources to improve life here on Earth...

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 11, 2004 05:38 AM

Kevin, I agree that grants for university aerospace studies have tremendous potential to serve as and important infrastructure investment. I work at a University that is about #15 in the USA in total medical research grants. We expect to move into the top 10 next year. This place is the boomtown equivalent of Houston in the early 1960s with all of the giant construction cranes whirling around.

All but a small percentage of our government and private grants are dedicated to medical research. Healthcare is the space program of our time as far as government research funding is concerned.

We are flirting with becoming the largest hospital in the USA and some people claim that we already are. The hospital pharmacy alone generated $298 in revenues last year and last month the hospital billed about $139 million. When you combine the research grants with the fact that this region has a lot of poor people who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid (guaranteed payment) it is easy to see why the richest MDs in America live in Alabama.

For comparison with those figures above, check this out. UAB has flown more experiments in space than any university in the world. Tom Wdowiak, my old emeritus physics professor here on campus is one of the Mars Rover investigators. For astronaut Larry Delucas, one of my former bosses here, runs the biophysics lab that used to be known as the NASA Center for Macromolecular Crystallography. The total NASA grants here have added up to less than $30 million annually in recent years. I have heard that is about 1/10th of the NIH research grants figure, although that figure is not easy to determine since many of the medical labs here are comparable to the JPL situation and they apparently don't report all of their grants to the admin office.

I walk past the enormous Hugh Kaul Human Genetics research building several times daily as I cross the campus. It is a beautiful new building with an artificial waterfall facing the street. "Your tax dollars at work", as they say. The pounding rhythm of pile drivers and wrecking balls on our 80 plus square block campus keeps our complaining dorm dwellers up all night. The work on these buildings is a 24/7 process. Healthcare is where the action is these days. One of my doctor friends recently told me that he moved from Emory in Atlanta to here because he could basically triple his $625,000 base-pay in Atlanta. And that guy works for one of the smaller surgery departments!

This place receives jillions of bucks to do HIV/AIDs research here as well as in Zambia. I have to agree with those who say that our aging US population base will make it difficult for politicians to focus on funding programs that take dollars away from the healthcare and medical research area.

Republicans, as well as Democrats are acutely aware of the medical/entitlement wants and needs of that huge, aging Baby Boomer population. It is going to be some tough sledding for us, the advocates of human space exploration.

Posted by Jim McDade at March 11, 2004 07:56 AM

Corrections: My auto spell-checker/correction nailed me a coulpe of times in the last post. UAB Pharmacy billed $298 "million" in 2003. Delucas is a "former" astronaut.

Posted by Jim McDade at March 11, 2004 08:18 AM

Space policy, Kerry and the Democrats

Sadly manned space exploration is and will stay a partisan issue. I already mentioned the problem of the Bush connection and the partisan hostility to all things Bush. But it goes even deeper than that.

The real crux of future manned space exploration is the exploitation of nuclear power. And the Democratic party supports the anti-nuclear movement as one of the core elements of it's environmentalist and peace constituencies. Can you imagine the Democratic party embracing nuclear power for the sake of space exploration? I can't imagine it either.

Since the Presidency is the indispensable office controlling space policy, the future requires that office be held by a Republican. Manned space exploration will stay a partisan issue unfortuneatly. Republicans for manned space exploration and Democrats against.

Posted by Brad at March 14, 2004 02:28 AM

Thanks Jim,

This explains it! Caltech is doing well with Bio too, but it sounds like a whole different magnitude of growth in Alabama, and I don't think it's typical of other places.

I'm no expert, but my understanding was that Alabama is very well cared for on Capitol Hill, in part because of the disproportionate power that small states wield. That probably skews the impression a little... in LA right now it feels like the end of aerospace research, and in aeronautics at Caltech we count our NASA money in tens of thousands, not millions.

Posted by Kevin Parkin at March 14, 2004 06:58 PM

Kevin,

Direct NASA spending in this state was $1 billion in the year 2000. That is nothing to sneeze at, but it only a fraction of what the feds pour into so-called "anti-poverty" programs, healthcare, agricultural entitlements, etc.

The NASA "Southern Crescent" that rings the Gulf of Mexico from Houston to Cape Canaveral tells us that those powerful "Foghorn Leghorn" Southern Senators have long been successful at manipulating the federal wealth redistribution process. TVA was just the beginning of the odd alliance between the grass roots socialists from the Deep South and the wealthy liberal establishment based in the Northeast. I can remember when George Wallace Jr. and Robert Kennedy Jr. were roommates at Huntingdon College.

For decades, race baiting was the easiest way to get elected to public office in this state. That strategy no longer works. The court desegregation of the 1950s and 1960s did succeed in getting black and white southerners to seek and achieve relative domestic tranquility. Unfortunately, the federal government still "pays people to remain "poor and oppressed" through ill-conceived, corrupt social welfare programs. Naturally, the victims of the welfare state feel that they have no choice other than voting a straight Democrat even when a known crook or thug is running against an "honest" republican or Independent. (I put "honest" in quotes since honesty in politics is more elusive than a perfect vacuum is in science.)

Alabama still takes in more federal dollars than it gives in taxes every year. As you might expect in a liberal socialist society, most of the people who live here are either very wealthy or very poor.

The wave of educated "immigrants" from other regions of the USA is creating a new middle-class here that isn't emotionally attached to the traditions and values of the region so the coming decades are going to be very interesting. A simultaneous wave of poorly educated Hispanics and highly educated Chinese, Indians and even Russians. A recent study indicates that the Asian origin population of this state will increase 103.5% from 1995 to 2025. Quote from today's Birmingham News: " The Birmingham-Hoover metro area has more Asian immigrants than ever before, with hundreds of Japanese families newly relocated here and working for Honda, a long residing Chinese population, and substantial Vietnamese, Indian, Filipino and Korean communities. Other Alabamians hail from Thailand, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Cambodia, among other countries. Area universities also attract Asian students." And yes, within a year of moving here, the kids of these incoming Asian and Indian kids are almost all superficially "southernized", sporting Lynyrd Skynyrd garb and Confederate flag skateboards at the local skate park. If my father were to come back from the grave, he would be astounded at the new look of Dixie.

Some of the Mexican kids also embrace sountern culture, but apparently not to the degree that most Russian, Chinese and Korean kids do.

Posted by Jim McDade at March 15, 2004 07:36 AM

Nasa needs to build a reliable RLV even a low risk TSTO lox kerosene one.All that matters is that the new space craft can make weekly flights and meet a saftey of 1 loss in 2000 flights or better.
Accomplish that and things like moon bases and mars missions will not only be possible but affordable.
As for the CEV designs all so far will not even come close to doing the job of logistics the best they'll acomplish would be an apollo repeat though this time they may not be extremely lucky as they were with apollo.The existing CEV concepts also would also be less safe then the existing shuttle less backup systems,no airlock "extermely dangerous by modern standards soyuz has an airlock/toilet area called the orbital modual",no proper gally and bathroom "inconvenant and possibley a health risk" and no engine out capibility on the EELVs.Nasa R&D on any manned transport craft that cannot carry at least 5 people and provide the same features,comfort and redunatcy of the shuttle is a dead end and a waste of money.
Another near term ideal is to use Zurbin's mars direct concepts and derive the CEV from the ERV this would yield a roomy safe reusable space craft that would be compatible with the atlas 552 for LEO missions.Lunar mission would require a shuttle-c and mars missions two shuttle-c or one magnum shuttle derive LV launch for the marshab and the same for the ERV.

Posted by at July 6, 2004 12:07 PM

RE: Does John Kerry realize that space exploration is the single most important activity as far as ... the future of all earth-based life is concerned?
False by definition. Space exploration is of single most importance to potential space based life - which should be the aim, IMHO.

Jim says: Kerry and Edwards are not “visionary people” by any stretch. Edwards probably thinks that we can “sue” our way to survival. Kerry cannot see beyond the walls of university research labs. If these two are elected, America will revisit the dismal Ford-Carter years in more ways than just a dearth of space vitality. The Kerry-Edwards is comprised of the #1 and #4 liberals in Washington. Their preference for entitlements and superficial justice as tools of progress will lead them to the trash bin of history—where Ford and Carter now wait for them. Fortunately, this pendulous, somber duo can only delay, not end the concept of progress.

We are a space faring people. Our destiny is in space. More than 99% of the natural resources essential for continued survival of earth life lie "out there". Our urge to explore is a fundamental component of that set of behaviors known as "survival instinct". The space environment will lead to speciation, or the emergence of new branches of the human family and new branches of the species that we take with us on our journey.

Some people maintain a death grip on the unrealistic notion that we are not a space-faring people. The afflicted mind of the naysayer wants to believe that our space pursuits can somehow be undone or even wiped from the record of history. WE ARE A SPACE-FARING PEOPLE!

We have a serious problem with school curriculum in this country and the entire world. Space exploration is accorded no or scant attention by writers of history texts. I went into a "parent-teacher" store two days ago looking for some summer "warm-up" books to help my kids prepare for the next grade. The store sold two wall posters that drew my attention. One poster was titled EXPLORERS. That poster started with Leif Eriksson and ended with Cook. Did exploration stop in the 18th century? No cosmonauts or astronauts were to be found on that poster. The same was true of a poster titled PIONEERS. According to that poster the last pioneers who lived traveled in Conestoga wagons. I do not understand why space exploration is tucked away into a minor subcategory of history curricula. Students do get a small dose of space history in science class, but the subject also needs to be covered in history class.

Posted by Jim McDade at July 7, 2004 10:55 AM

Post a comment