February 03, 2003
Whither NASA?
The comments I received on my Columbia piece below were mostly favorable, but there were a few hard-core libertarians that took me to task for advocating bigger, larger programs for NASA. Socialism in space, they call it.
I used to think the same way. Let private industry take charge of space development. Who needs government? And there is some logic behind this position. Big government programs are often characterized by waste, short-sightedness, and bureaucratic sclerosis. Better to let the forces of the market work for us. Multiple competing space programs will act as a filter for the best ideas to rise to the top. Competition will force efficiency and innovation. And I agree with much of this.
But where is the private enterprise for space? There are a few mega-budget rocket programs for satellite launch, but not much else. There have been many excuses made for the lack of private enterprise in space - NASA subsidizes space launch for heavy lift, which crowds out the private market. Launch licenses are hard to get, and risky to investors. Bureaucratic red tape between the FAA and NASA adds uncertainty to business models.
I've come to the conclusion that most of these arguments don't really hold water, or if they do their effect is greatly over-stated. There have been plenty of private attempts to get to space. Most of them have ended in failure. And some of them haven't even been underfunded - one program blew through 240 million dollars before folding. The Roton Rocket is gone. Most of the X-prize competitors aren't even close, even though many of them have been working on their programs for years, aren't in competition with the government in any way, and their goals are very modest.
It's time to face the reality that there are just some things that require the resources of a nation, and manned spaceflight may be one of those things, at least into the near and medium term future. Certainly the more ambitious planetary exploration programs fit that category.
And NASA is a bargain. It is the shining pearl of the federal government. NASA receives only about 1/3 the funding of the Department of Education. Which do you think has delivered more value? NASA's budget is a mere 15 billion dollars out of a 2.2 trillion dollar federal budget - less than 1%. If you're looking to shrink the cost of government, NASA isn't the place to do it. President Bush's stimulus plan alone would fund NASA at current levels for 40 years. Clearly, we can afford a greatly enhanced space program, if the will is there.
Now, does that mean NASA is doing everything right? I don't think so. I think we would be much better off if NASA would focus on being a research agency, and get out of the space truck business. Once a program moves out of test flight and into operational status, NASA should hand the construction contract for operational vehicles over to private industry, and let them do the job of building and flying them.
For that to happen, NASA has to get much smarter about the way it builds and operates rockets. The Shuttle has an insane amount of ground support built around NASA's infrastructure. So while NASA can (and does) contract out some operations to other companies, it can't move shuttle launches off to private facilities. And it this huge infrastructure and long, labor intensive turnaround time that makes a shuttle launch so expensive.
NASA is about to build the next generation space plane. It should be designed so that its support systems on the ground are minimal, using as much off-the-shelf hardware as possible. NASA can subcontract the design and construction, pay for R&D and flight test prototypes, do the flight testing, and then turn operational control over to Boeing, or McDonnell Douglas, or anyone else with the resources to bid on such a contract. These companies can manufacture the planes and sell them to the military or fly military missions on contract. NASA can contract their own space launches through these companies. For NASA's investment, it would get priority status for its own launches and for military payloads.
Before the Columbia mishap, NASA was preparing to announce some bold new programs. Prometheus is a research program to develop a nuclear powered rocket, along with new, more powerful nuclear batteries (RTG's). And NASA was about to commit to a program to launch a large, powerful Jupiter mission using nuclear propulsion, to launch by 2010. With nuclear power, such a probe could move through the Jovian system for a decade, orbiting each of Jupiter's satellites in turn.
These programs have the hearty support of President Bush and NASA administrator O'Keefe. And they are exactly the kinds of visionary, research-oriented programs that NASA should be doing.
Along with Prometheus, NASA's Origins program is still on track to launch bigger and better telescopes into space, culminating in telescopes so large that we will be able to image earth-like planets in other star systems and analyze their atmospheres for oxygen and biomarkers. With enough funding, we can do better than that - Using space interferometry, we can launch telescope arrays with so much resolution that we could image planets in other star systems with the kind of detail we get from large telescopes looking at our own moon. The universe is within our grasp.
With nuclear rockets, a manned Mars mission becomes feasible. A nuclear rocket can shorten the round trip to Mars from almost three years to six months, and lower the cost by an order of magnitude. The nuclear Jupiter mission should be seen as a test vehicle for the nuclear propulsion and battery technology that could be used in a manned Mars mission by 2015.
Private industry is not going to undertake these kinds of ventures, at least not for decades. Only NASA can do this.
A robust space exploration program has ramifications here on Earth. Great civilizations decay when they stop looking outwards and begin navel-gazing. The battle for the hearts and minds of the world will be much easier when America can offer the gift of exploration and stretching the boundaries of humanity. The Apollo program united the world in wonder and awe for a few glorious years. It was the best public-relations program the United States ever had.
It's time for the U.S. to do something bold and brilliant in space. President Bush believes that. His father believed that. NASA believes it. And with a new space race heating up in the far east, the time is right. An extra two or three billion a year for NASA is all that would be required to begin the most ambitious chapter of mankind's journey into space. Let's do it.
Posted by Dan at February 3, 2003 05:22 PM
Thank you, Dan.
As much as I heartily support X-Prize, Canadian Arrow and Starchaser, my two favorites for the win, are still a good way off.
You have the heart for understanding the purpose and need for manned space exploration, whether the government has to jump in or not.
I always thought Burt Rutan would come up with something cool. The man's an aeronautical genius. And I think the X-prize is a great idea.
Nonetheless, I've become a bit disillusioned at the prospect of private space travel in the next 20 years or so. Ever since Robert Truax announced his manned cannonball a couple of decades ago, there have been dozens of companies started to attempt private manned rocket launches. Not one of them has succeeded in even getting a human above the 50 mile limit, let alone into orbit.
Another sobering thing to look at is the development cost and time for a new jet. Space vehicles are much more complex, and yet a new jet design can cost billions and take more than ten years. And this is just improving on known, common-use engineering. Breaking new ground in advanced propulsion and materials in a man-rated vehicle is a whole 'nuther level of problem.
Our best hope now for a private rocket system is for NASA to do the R&D for the space plane, contract it out to several firms, and then let them gain the domain knowledge of operating and flying manned vehicles into space. Open up the system to competitive bidding, and let them worry about improvements in the systems once they are proven and flying. Maybe if we do that, the NEXT generation of space vehicles will be completely privately designed, built, and flown.
I'm off to look it up, but I'm crossing my fingers that "Truax's Manned Cannonball" isn't the guy who was trying to turn a cement mixer into a space capsule. I believe it was referred to as "an exercise in instant death".
I keep asking myself about a core reengineering of the shuttle design. The shuttle is, in itself, an effective, if not economical concept. It's the small SUV of orbital space flight. It can carry decent loads, offers lots of space, and carries a good sized crew for a relatively long time. It can do hard work. At the very least, we could surely rebuild the design using new materials and technology to make it lighter, stronger, and less dependent on excessive electronic links.
It would still take years though.
Maybe we could build a new capsule. :)
Thank god on Truax. I don't ever want the cement mixer guy's name brought up in a serious scenario again. :)
Actually, at least one of the Xprize team's craft appears to be based on the water-rocket/Seabee principle.
Out of curiosity, Dan, how do you feel about the Red Chinese manned space program? (and, of course, their claim to build a moonbase within 10 years, which, well, I know how *I* feel about it, barely able to contain my laughter)
Oh dear. Now I got curious about why "Truax" made me think of the cement mixer, and found out that the cement mixer guy *is* the Starchaser X-Prize team. (Although I'd swear the guy I'm thinking of was in the American southwest, not Britain)
I suppose it confirms our suspicions about how close we really are to a launch, when you realize that Starchaser is (or was, until recently?) widely regarded as the leading team.
Robert Truax was a pretty serious rocket engineer. He spent his career in advanced missile design in the Navy and Air Force.
His design was simply a rocket built with surplus missile guidance equipment, and a capsule on the top. He was going to fire it 50 miles up and becomes the first private manned launch in history.
I don't know much about the Chinese manned program, other than that the claim of a moonbase within 10 years seems pretty grandiose. But if it kicks off another space race, then it might be a good thing for all of us.
What can be done to lessen the public's fear of nuclear rockets and nuclear power in space? Remember the Cassini bullshit?
I suppose that from a very strict point of view, the activities NASA engages in could be looked at as unconstitutional ("spending money on space isn't among the enumerated powers of the Federal Government").
However, personally I guess I look at it the same way I look at, for example, the Lewis & Clark expedition. And if Federal financing that was good enough for Jefferson, then Federal financing of space exploration should be good enough for us.
I do think that there will be a viable private space industry eventually. But the costs will have to go down first.
My big beef is with the way Congress looks at manned space flight. They treat it like it's the D.A.R.E. program, like they can cut the funding and cut a few officers out.
Life hangs in the balance with manned space flight, and it's an all-or-nothing deal. NASA is acephalous, they have no primary goal. Personally, I'd like to see the human conquest of the earth's gravitational field. That would be a fine goal, to bring us to the stage where private suborbital travel and freight are within the reach of industry.
They need to be given the clear directive to achieve that goal, and given the money to do it, plus some more to make sure they can do whatever they need to do.
If you can't do it right, don't do it at all.
Dan,
I grew up dreaming of the day our species will set up societies beyond earth. Challenger exploded when I was in high school and it shook me like few things did up to that point in my life. I wholeheartedly embrace the goal of achieving the stars.
Unfortunately, my moral code as an adult won't allow me to accept forcing people to fund a space program. How can I? I sure as hell resent my money being spent on stuff I don't want to support.
You say that private enterprise can't achieve the stars yet. I agree. But since the goal is not yet cost-effective I can't jump on board the government gravy train and force others to help me realize my dreams. It sucks that the free market won't achieve the stars for a while. I have to live with that fact. My support of the noble people at NASA is an issue. Coercing others to do the same is - and it's what prevents me from joining you.
The ends don't justify the means. The means should determine the ends.
My two cents...
I used to believe the same thing. As I've gotten older, my attitude has changed a bit. The fact is, the government does MANY things with tax money. In order of 'rightness to wrongness', I'd list them as:
- Providing for a common defense
- Providing police to protect citizens from internal coercion.
- Providing courts of law to objectively settle disputes among citizens.
These are the 'core' libertarian valid forms of government. But then the government also:
- maintains an infrastructure of common places, such as roads, interstate highways, parks, etc.
- Manages relations between nations through treaties
- Provides minimal regulation to the marketplace to provide smooth functioning, prevent market failures, regulates securities transactions, etc.
- Allocates and regulates very scarce resources (airwaves, canals, airspace)
- Engages in public works that are a benefit to all, but not a significant enough economic benefit to concentrated capital that the marketplace will do it. NASA fits into this category, as does the NSF, the Superconducting Supercollider, etc.
- Provides aid and relief to areas of need in the world. AIDS funding, famine relief, U.N. peacekeeping, etc. All of this helps provide a stable world that allows global markets to function.
This is where I draw the line as to what 'proper' government should do. Within these broad guidelines, I would prefer to see as much market-based reform as possible, but I recognize the value of the government engaging in these things. To the extent that all of the above needs to be paid for, I also support the concept of coercive taxation.
The last category of government actions include:
- Manipulating society through the tax system for 'social justice' reasons.
- Passing laws to protect people from themselves
- Regulating industries for reasons other than to maintain the effectiveness of the market (FDA, OSHA, etc. ad nauseum)
- Using tax money to prop up industries that the government thinks need supporting (farm subsidies, tax breaks for certain products, etc)
- Minimum wage laws and other industry regulations designed to prevent the market from working properly
It's this last category that I now focus my attention on. It's where the greatest injustice is, it's where the bulk of the money goes, and it's the least defensible, which means that there are good cases that can be made that people other than policy wonks can appreciate.
Hard-core libertarianism is utopian. It makes for great water-cooler discussions, but people who stick to that position in policy debates just marginalize themselves. If the Libertarian party would move away from its extreme positions and work more towards reforming the worst 30% of government activity, it might actually achieve something. Until then, it's destined to get 1% to 5% of the vote, and destined to irrelevance.
Back to NASA - Spending for space exploration is not redistributive - it doesn't punish one to benefit another. It doesn't disrupt markets (or rather, it does, but shouldn't - I advocate many market-based reforms that would keep NASA in an R&D mode and trickle technology into the private sector as it does with its aeronautical research). And it doesn't cost us much - As I said in the article, the Department of Education consumes three times as much money, and if it vanished tomorrow education would probably improve. How about we just cancel the Department of Education, and divert the money to NASA? With 60 billion dollars a year, we could have a permanent moon base, annual missions to Mars, and a manned mission to Europa in 20 years. We could have telescopes that allow us to see artificial structures on planets orbiting other stars. We could be making the first steps towards asteroid mining. We could build a space elevator and cut the cost to orbit by a factor of 1000.
As we develop commercial possibilities, turn them over to private industry. NASA can push the boundaries, and private industry can exploit it.
Sometimes I try to pose as a moderate libertarian; but sooner or later someone always challenges me to distinguish my position from anarchism, which is tricky because in fact my position is anarchism. So I may as well start there, rather than retreat there and look like a hypocrite.
You said what needs to be said: A lot of bloggers may get starry-eyed talking about private industry and individuals colonizing the other frontiers, but lets be clear: To get to america, you needed long-haul ships that were nation-level (or very wealthy individual) resources. Colombus did not pay to build his own ships.
Sometimes government has to lead the way when it is the only thing that has enough resources. Later, we can turn it over to entrepeneurs and even poineers... but that time is not yet come.
What can we do for now? Avoid forbidding individuals from making the attempt... we already see enviromorons trying to declare all of outer space as wilderness too precious to risk dirtying without footsteps. Do what NASA is doing now: try to anticipate through experiment the hazards of long-term life in space. And find ways to make space access cheaper: once it dips below a certain point people will create reasons to go.
Until then, we need NASA, or something very close. The shuttles aren't perfect, but don't they beat having no shuttles by a large margin?
The shuttles aren't perfect, but don't they beat having no shuttles by a large margin?
Perhaps, but those aren't the only two options, and it may be that by having Shuttles we are prevented from getting anything better.
Robotic missions to the outer planets and fancy-dan nuclear-powered spacecraft are nice and all, but wouldn't it be better to concentrate effort on reliable access to space? The shuttles were always a bureaucratic frankenstein, and are now dangerous. Where's the replacement? The russians can give us a major heavy-lift booster without much trouble, but personnel carriers are the important part, and the US does that better than anyone.
Let the engineers design. Let congress pay. And never the twain shall meet.
"Definition of an elephant - A mouse built to government specifications". - Robert Heinlein
I agree that the concept of the shuttle requires a major re-think. The whole idea of a re-usable spacecraft was to lower the cost to orbit. If turnaround maintenance and added system complexity makes it more expensive to use a reusable craft than a throwaway rocket or another solution, then the design is fundamentally flawed.
Another inefficiency in the Shuttle is that it's one-size fits all. The thing has huge cargo capacity, but often flies with with less than 100% utilization (or low-value experiments or items are added to fill it).
I don't know much about spacehab, but I wonder why a shuttle was flown with a small laboratory to do zero-G experiments, when the Space Station that was designed for exactly that purpose was available. It could be that the equipment on ISS isn't set up for these experiments or something, but that just illustrates the inefficiencies in the current way things are going. Wouldn't it have been better to fly something like Spacehab up to the the ISS on an unmanned rocket, dock it there, then send the Astronauts up in a small spaceplane to do the work?
Regardless of any re-thinking of the shuttle program, though, it needs to keep flying until there is a replacement. There are some payloads that are designed for the shuttle and just can't go up any other way (ISS components, mainly, but perhaps also some military satellites and other payloads that are already under construction).
