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."

Comments

Wait, these are not MY corporations

[FatLittleMonkey]

FTFA: "Instead, NASA was directed to pursue a riskier course, diverting billions of dollars to a group of companies– most devoid of experience in manned space vehicles"

Ah, Republicans, all for market solutions, as long as the money goes to the your preferred part of the market.
(Even better, they're blaming Obama for wasting $9b on the ridiculous Constellation.)

Re:Wait, these are not MY corporations

[murdocj]

The 9 billion was already wasted, Obama simply had the courage to admit that.

Re:Wait, these are not MY corporations

[Karmashock]

These two comments underline the problem with keeping the space program in the government's hands. The reality is that the political divides within the US are making US governance dysfunctional and ultimately everything that we wish to remain reliable must be isolated or abstracted away from the ebb and flow of the two parties war over control. Doubtless both sides will say the best solution is for the other side to submit to it's power but that seems unlikely. If carried to an extreme that will mean the end of the republic as all decisions will be in the hands of the unelected. The democrats hate the space program except when they love it and the republicans love the space program except when they hate it. There's little rhyme or reason to it. They're both playing to the crowd when they think it will win them votes and when not they'll loot the budget for other programs or ideas. Who trusts they'll keep funding space programs and who even trusts that NASA is doing a good job of allocating what resources it gets? We've all heard the horror stories of no-bid contracts, cost plus contracts, and just straight up cronyism as it regards these things. A private sector space industry if it can actually be nurtured into existence will self sustain, self direct, and be both beyond the inevitable chaos of US politics without requiring the republic to chain itself to an endless system of unalterable rules. So that is why I find the private sector model appealing. I question whether those that are against it do so because they don't believe it will be made a reality or whether they're just reflexively anti corporate despite the fact that we all depend upon the corporations as economic institutions. Ironically, it seems those that live in cities seem to hate them most even though none are more dependent upon them then those same people. Just an observation.

Re:Wait, these are not MY corporations

[Teancum]

Democrats are all for market solutions for spacelaunch..... because the current system is so screwed up that going with a "market solution" is 100% not the way that George W. Bush did it. Therefore it must be good.

I do like this phrase: "Democrats don't think free markets work in the atmosphere, Republicans don't think it works above."

BTW, the $9 billion being dumped on Constellation is mostly a Republican earmark of monumental proportions. I find it strange that of all of the earmarks that Republicans are willing to keep, this one stands out. I think that figure may even be a bit low, but that is your figure and large enough I can live with it as it gets the point across that it is a colossal waste of money. For myself, I think Constellation is just plain wrong to be happening for many reasons, even if it might be a potential employer for myself and that its cancellation will adversely impact many of my neighbors.

Re:Wait, these are not MY corporations

[Teancum]

The ghost of Constellation keeps on marching on like a zombie that has to be killed multiple times. It has morphed into SLS and will likely morph again into something else, while the Ares I has now morphed into the "Liberty" spacecraft.

Keep in mind that the Ares I was mainly supposed to be a Shuttle SRB that flew on its own, but since it didn't have enough "umph" to make it to orbit, they had to add an extra section.... which added far more complications to the design than anybody who started the idea was willing to admit.

Now if NASA could only design a rocket system that actually flew. NASA has a dismal record of one launcher program after another getting cancelled, of which the Constellation program is merely the last of a long line of bureaucratic failures. Fancy dreams do eventually have to face the ugly truth called physics, and the results often aren't pretty.

ah, Pete Olson

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:ah, Pete Olson

[EMI Lab]

Well, get your facts checked. DOD terminated the GE JSF engine. I know. I was working on the EMI/EMC compliance on the engine control (FADEC) system. My new assignments are related to EMC compliance of space packages for ATK boosters that are under development. To be honest both the republicraps and democraps are responsible for the difficulities we are in. They are both paid-off by the big corporations and wall street. Both parties idea of fiscal responsibility are based on smoke and mirrors. They both lie and blame each other for accomplishing nothing while accepting money from their buddies. We have all been effectively hoodwinked.

There's no plan there...

[Michael_gr]

Only a call to create a plan. The article is wrongfully disdainful of private rocket companies. Nine years ago, SpaceX started developing their launch systems. They started from scratch. They Spent maybe 10% of the equivalent NASA budget for Constellation. And they have something to show for it - several successful launches, a space capsule that has successfully returned form orbit and is being fitted for a manned launch, and a heavy launch vehicle in the works. NASA, in the mean time, was creating a *derived* system and yet ran into technological problems and have yet to produce a single piece of hardware that can do anything. Obama is diverting funds from a slow-moving, conservative, wasteful government agency and cancelled an under-performing, over-budget, technologically conservative (and yet riddled with problems) program. The money was diverted to the free market. And yet, all the space-loving republicans who touted the free market's ability to compete with NASA are now howling and complaining. Why? cause it's OBAMA, that's why.

Re:There's no plan there...

[robot256]

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.

When Did Koch Industries Get Into Aerospace?

[cmholm]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same Olson who never met a program he didn't want to cut, or a tax expenditure (ie. loophole) for the oil industry he didn't want to protect? It's natural for a Congressional Rep to protect local industry, so I'm not surprised he's looking to replace his pork funding stream.

The days when a noticeable fraction of the US GDP goes into NASA are long over. Unless someone discovers an asteroid that shits tax breaks, private industry is going to stick with shooting sats into orbit. It's been a nice ride, but US man-in-space is basically over for the rest of my lifetime. I'll be interested to see how far the Chinese and Indians go before they hit their own limits.

The snarky title refers to Rep. Olson's largest campaign contributor, and I think it safe to say that the Kochs' could give a rat's behind about space flight.

This is a "prestige" plan without a mission

[Dr. Spork]

To be honest, I prefer Obama's "let the private sector do it" approach to manned space travel than the Texas Republican's "only big government can do it" manifesto. (I hope the irony is not lost on anyone.) In general, we need do de-emphasize human missions. These are largely vanity projects and don't generate anywhere near as much science as things like Wmap and the Mars rovers. The first question that any NASA proposal should begin with is: What do we want to learn about space? And what's the safest and most cost-effective way to learn it? These guys are still stuck in the old "wouldn't it be cool if we launched a guy to ...?"

Re:This is a "prestige" plan without a mission

[hey!]

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.

Re:All for free

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

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.

Re:Constellation was not a Shuttle Replacement.

[scharkalvin]

From scratch means SpaceX had developed their own rocket engines and systems to go along with them. Sure, they are using existing launch systems, why not?
The Falcon 1 rocket will earn them money by launching commercial satellites. The Falcon 9 along with the Dragon capsule will become the system to re-supply the ISS and ferry astronauts to and from the ISS. The upcoming Falcon 9 heavy has about half the weight lifting ability of the Saturn-V rocket. It uses a new concept of staging where the strap on tank-boosters transfer fuel back into the core during initial flight so when the boosters separate the core is still fully fueled. Also since the boosters are separated at a lower altitude and speed they should be re-usable. The Falcon 9 heavy is the result of a lot of new thinking, and will out perform existing Titan and Atlas based heavy lift systems. It will also provide the lowest cost to orbit per lb of ANY rocket system yet.