Slashdot Mirror
A Congressman and an Astronaut Propose a New Plan For NASA
MarkWhittington writes "Reflecting a rising discontent with the state of the U.S. space program in the wake of the last space shuttle mission, Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, and Apollo astronaut Walt Cunningham have proposed a new space plan that addresses space exploration, the role of commercial space, and reform of NASA."
So, he ran on a platform of slashing nearly all government programs, eliminating many agencies entirely, and halving the budgets of others--- because private-sector alternatives are always superior, whether it's private schools, private healthcare, or corporate research labs.
Oh, except NASA, which is a vitally important public service that can't be replicated in the private sector. Coincidentally, he represents a district in southeastern Houston, and NASA is one of the largest employers in that district.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
So? What is wrong with letting the private sector do what they are best at--taking existing technology and refining it to the point of profitability? It's not trivial work, and we need it done just as much as we need the research in the first place. I think we've pretty well proven that the current system of government funding is incapable of actually producing an efficient production program.
Besides, the minute the space shuttle became a "production" vehicle, the progress stopped. It should never have been elevated to that status; the shuttle was an incomplete and half-baked idea from the start and should have been the first in a long list of modern spacecraft experiments by NASA. Instead, we were stuck with a boondoggle program in need of justification, hence Hubble and the space station. All worthy enterprises, but could have been so, so much cheaper if the shuttle had been refined for another 10 years--or changed completely--before production.
IMHO, the real test is to see if we can jump-start the real research in NASA while simultaneously promoting private-sector production development of existing technologies. And no, a Constellation-style (read: Apollo-style) heavy-lift rocket does not constitute real research. That too can be left to the private sector. I've said it a million times, Constellation was squarely on track to become just as expensive and unreliable as the shuttle--that "$9b wasted" was a drop in the bucket compared to what the program would have cost in the long run. The real research is in ion & plasma drives, space elevators, and planetary exploration vehicles, etc.
The 9 billion was already wasted, Obama simply had the courage to admit that.
I see non-manned missions as a sensible prerequisite to manned ones. Before Vostok 1 you had Sputnik. There were 20 robotic launches in the Mercury Program before Alan Shepard went up on Mercury-Redstone 3. Before the manned lunar landing we had the Ranger, Surveyer and Lunar Orbiter programs.
Even if you didn't care about the people you send to, say Mars, it would be financially unconscionable to send them there before we'd done some missions that returned Martian samples to earth. I'll give a few reasons here:
* Experience shows that Mars landings are risky.
* We have no experience with Mars launches; a few test runs are needed if returning human explorers is important.
* Identify targets which can best be studied by humans before sending very expensive missions.
* Maintain and advance planetary exploration skills with frequent cheap missions where failure *is* an option.
* Reduce cost of manned exploration by developing proven and reliable systems.
* Develop a sustainable, successful planetary exploration program before risking everything on a fabulously expensive manned mission with untried technology and uncertain goals.
There are times when you have to be bold, but there are times when being sensible is the bold thing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In 1979, during a similar dick-waving exercise as today, the US didn't pay some (tiny fraction of) T-bills in a timely manner, technically defaulting on them. The result was that the US had to pay a higher interest rate on all its debt for many years afterwards. Quickest link I could find, plenty more out there.