Wednesday, September 23, 2009
What Should NASA Do to Secure Its Future?
To get the funding the agency desires, space advocates have some explaining to do.
By Brittany Sauser
Last
week the panel charged with reviewing the future of U.S. human spaceflight went before Congress
to discuss its summary report (which we covered
here).
The
Augustine panel took quite a bit of heat from the House Committee on Science
and Technology, which was dismayed that the panel had not been more specific in
its recommendations. Some chair members were also disgruntled that the panel
had provided alternative options to NASA's current exploration plan even though
it did not find any evidence of mismanagement or technical problems.
It's
clear from the panel's report that NASA needs more money if it is to send
humans to other bodies in the solar system--even if the agency uses the
commercial sector--and that the Obama administration has some hefty decisions
to make on the future of U.S. space exploration in the coming weeks.
The
Space Review's
editor and publisher, Jeff Foust, has written a
nice article here
analyzing the one question that needs to be answered for NASA to receive its
desired funding (an additional $3 billion per year): Why should the U.S. have a
human spaceflight program at all?
The
"real reason why we continue to do civil human spaceflight," says
Foust, is "because we have for nearly 50 years, starting with that
incredible surge in the 1960s when we raced the Soviet Union to the Moon and
won."
Foust continues:
If we
were to stop doing it, the reasoning goes, we would look weak and lose
prestige, regardless of what else we decided to do in space or elsewhere
instead of human spaceflight. It's not an exciting argument to starry-eyed
space enthusiasts who dream of going to the Moon and beyond, but it does
explain a great many things.
In
addition, Foust argues that the benefits of "the frontier"--traveling
into the solar system--need to be brought back to the people so that civilians understand
the value of space travel.
While
Foust says it may be too late in the near term for a compelling argument for
human spaceflight to be made to the public so that NASA can get the $3 billion
(the administration does have more pressing issues like healthcare to deal
with), there is hope for the future, assuming the administration gives NASA
just enough to sustain its current program.
He
concludes:
If
NASA's human spaceflight program is to survive, and thrive, its supporters
would do well to take that message to heart: to better explain to the public,
the White House, and Congress how it is aligned with national interests and
provides "better value" (another phrase from [NASA deputy
administrator Lori Garver's] speech [at AIAA Space 2009]). To do so may require
a shift from the tired old reasons of the past to new ones that put the space
agency at the heart of a new mission to open up human spaceflight to a wider
range of applications and a greater degree of relevance and importance to all.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
Yet we cannot give NASA a $3 billion raise per year...
gabrielg01
09/23/2009
Posts:405
neilrieck
09/24/2009
Posts:20
It's all about motion. There are reasons to suppose that we are on the verge of a breakthrough in physics that will forever change our understanding of motion. Whether or not they admit it, physicists believe that two particles in relative inertial motion stay in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. The truth is that every effect must have a cause. An analysis of the causality of motion leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are swimming in a sea of energy, an immense lattice of wall-to-wall energetic particles, to be precise.
Soon, we will figure out how to tap into the lattice for energy production and transportation. It will be an age of practically unlimited free energy and extremely fast transportation. Vehicles will have no need for wheels, will go almost anywhere and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes. That’s the future of travel and energy production.
The Problem With Motion:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/09/physics-problem-with-motion-part-i.html
[edit] You can downvote me all you want but that's just a form of argument ad hominem. I am right about motion.
Mapou
09/23/2009
Posts:65
The true justification is that space is our future, and NASA is continuing to take our first steps.
Many, many decades ago, back in the 70s, I recall asking an astronomer the short-sighted question of that day, "Is it relevant?"
His thoughtful reply was that perhaps an understanding of the larger universe helps us to understand whether or not we ourselves are relevant.
NelsonBridwe...
09/23/2009
Posts:3
To fund these projects, we need to cut out everything NASA is doing that can be cut. We should cut everything that is not related to getting man to a human settlement on a star. The Hubble Space Telescope has not advanced getting man anywhere. To me, that means the funds expended on Hubble should have been spent on a launch vehicle or getting the International Space Station configured to become a way station to the Moon and Mars.
Why hasn't the Augustine Commission followed Jerry O'Neill's program? It seems to me that NASA has done its best to avoid doing anything O'Neill suggested. Why?
What can we do to advance the human settlement of a close star? What do you think Jerry O'Neill would say if he were alive?
Mr. Masse Bloomfield
macybee5
09/23/2009
Posts:1
The reason why his ideas were not seriously advanced is because Senator William Proxmire did his best to kill off any and all NASA colonization research as wastefull of taxpayers dollars.
In order to move successfully out into the universe, we need to understand what is out there, which is why space science (Hubble, Compton, Stardust, MER, Deep Impact, Messenger, ground based astronomy...) is so important.
What is good now is that in addition to all this basic science, NASA is also once again resuming it's development of versatile heavy lift launch capabilities for a wide range of human exploration missions beyond LEO destinations. The excitement is beginning to build.
NelsonBridwe...
09/24/2009
Posts:3
cfontanez
10/02/2009
Posts:2
The fuel cell and photovoltaic cell were really made workable because of space flight. CFD(computationl fluid dynamics) Software and further understanding or aero and thermo dynamics are the major reason for effiiency gains with military and commercial avation in wing shape and jet engies, the fuel economy gains in car engines and car aerodynamics, and greatly increased effeciency in gas turbines and generators for power generation. CFD software, CAD software and software that measure physical stress on materials has advaned efficiency in every product category you can think of.
Make everyone aware of the literally thousands of products, technologies and processes that are offshoots of space flight.
Hamletxi
09/23/2009
Posts:2
I would like to see a future business model for NASA where Biz-management HR was placed in a programs/projects support role to programs/projects-management Scientist and Engineers that have extensive adept heuristic-work skills/history with applied science/technology experience.
I find most (not all) Biz-managers competent at policy and bean-counting organization reality of resources/funds, but totally clueless on operations actualities, HR-valuation, and practical application.
Larry the Cable Guy (XM Blue Collar Radio) moniker-phrase "Get'er Dun!" always reminds me of too many EU and US Biz-managers. They can manage a business, but C*Os to mid-level managers with Biz-BS/MS/PhD should not make science a/o technology decisions.
Biz-managers need to keep to their own chosen specialty of providing or withdrawing resources and funds on the practical Biz-theory of "can or can't afford..." and avoid science and technology (as they already do theory) application requirements.
NASA disasters are unacceptable and indicate Biz-management systemic failure to understand applied science and technology.
Most Biz-management that attends a one or two day course on statistics will fail to comprehend they have no hope of being a statistician without years of education and experience; So, why did they pay $2.5K for a worthless course and waste of time. They could hire a statistician (scientist, mathematician, engineer...), but ....
Funnier still is when contracts/acquisition folks step far outside their skill set to critique science and technology requirements in a work-statement. %~P
JDBailey
09/24/2009
Posts:13
A time will come when humans will be tested to develop technology to reach and habitat other worlds. It is not a question if it would happen, but when will it happen. As such, the space program must continue to be properly funded so that generation after generation can continue to build on previous accomplishments and continue to provide humanity the necessary tools (technology) to evolve.
When people include politics in this equation, they do not understand that we might be the only intelligent life form in the universe and as such we must use the only opportunity we have to expand and colonize other worlds.
It simple - Fund NASA – let the smart people work. Continue the work of Neil and others……..I sure will.
Carlos Fontanez
cfontanez
10/02/2009
Posts:2
I was fired from NASA in the spring of 2006 to keep me from becoming a whisteblower on the criminal act of awarded the work without even a bid from Aerojet.
In the mean time, 4 key decision makers have moved from NASA to become ATK VPs.
Danny Deger
Danny Dot
10/04/2009
Posts:1