Two Views of The Vision
The White House had a different view of the Vision for Space Exploration than NASA
Last week, the Augustine Commission held another public meeting in Washington DC and Dr. John Marburger testified. For those just joining our story in progress, Marburger was President Bush’s Science Advisor and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House between 2001 and 2009. He was a key player in the development of the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) and his comments on the intent and reality of the VSE were interesting and insightful.
Marburger described a split between NASA and the White House during formulation of the Vision. NASA (led by former Administrator Sean O’Keefe, Chief Scientist John Grunsfeld and an internal study group within the agency) wanted a manned Mars mission (as it has for the last 50 years) while the White House (led by Marburger, his OSTP colleagues and some members of the National Security Council) called for a new direction and orientation of the space program. They favored a return to the Moon with the “mission” of radically changing the rules of spaceflight.
This latter course involved learning how to use the material and energy resources of the Moon to produce life support consumables, electrical power and rocket fuel, thereby creating new spaceflight capabilities. The White House group was informed by an abundance of detailed studies done over the past decade that demonstrated how the resources of the Moon could be tapped and utilized. Given the unlikelihood of significant new money for NASA, they believed that some kind of “game-changer” was needed – a way to step beyond low Earth orbit by incorporating innovative ways of conducting space business. A sustainable path, if you will.
Marburger’s biggest concern was that by inserting Mars as a goal (not by any means an “ultimate goal”) or even a date for lunar return, the path forward would become “burdened by deadlines and difficult budget issues.” He believed that a program composed of small, incremental steps would gradually but continuously expand human “reach” into space beyond low Earth orbit—with economy provided by a template of bootstrapping. The key was to use robotic missions as pathfinders to understand, access and acquire products derived from lunar and space resources.
As these differing threads were woven into a policy statement, NASA viewed the VSE as the next “large space program” for the agency. NASA’s traditional template dominated public discussion of the Vision, where gaps, arbitrary time scales and the long-desired human Mars mission as the “ultimate goal” became familiar talking points – not surprising, considering that the agency had sole custody of the VSE after it was crafted. Lunar return by 2020 was not meant as a deadline, but it is widely interpreted as such. Although the VSE is careful to mention trips to “Mars and other destinations,” the latter part of that phrase seldom appears in NASA charts.
The subsequent Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) is pure NASA. In classic agency fashion, “Apollo-on-steroids” (big giant booster, mega-capsule and gargantuan lander) was rolled out. The programmatic significance of Ares V in the architecture should not be overlooked – delivering 150 metric tones to LEO, it is a rocket designed for human Mars mission done in the Apollo-style, with everything needed for Mars dragged up from the deep gravity well of the Earth. It is overkill for almost any other space job, including missions to the Moon. Overkill can work, if you have the money (although it isn’t good practice even if you do have the money). But even with the most optimistic assumptions, the ESAS doesn’t fit into NASA’s current or projected budget.
Marburger’s concern is exactly what has happened. NASA thinks that its principal mission on the Moon is to conduct Apollo-style local site exploration and serve as a test-bed for the Mars flags-and-footprints extravaganza. The idea of building a spaceflight infrastructure using lunar resources was swept aside. An Apollo-like architecture was developed but with no political backing to pay for it. Now the agency finds itself subject to a protracted and embarrassing “public audit” of its mission and methods of doing business. The country is not disposed to a significant increase in spending on space, not just because of the poor state of the economy (although that doesn’t help) but because they think we are already spending the right amount. The comfortable, old shoe cannot be resoled; you cannot conduct space business today using the Apollo model, whereby technical difficulties are bludgeoned into submission by cash and long hard (and expensive) man-hours of work.
The way forward involves approaching the problem differently. Marburger’s take on the VSE is adaptable to any budgetary level. It makes continuous progress, using small steps when times are tough and larger ones when things are flush. It sets no deadlines but it does set strategic directions – incrementally beyond low Earth orbit, using what we find along the way to create new capabilities and possibilities. It has intermediate milestones that map progress and provide societal payback. It brings commercial enterprise along, with the aim of expanding our space economy and high-technology industrial base. In other words, it is sustainable. It is the antithesis of the conventional form of space exploration.
Given the dwindling amount of money for discretionary spending in the federal budget, perhaps the idea of using lunar resources to build a sustainable infrastructure in space should be embraced.
Digg
Reddit
Stumbleupon
Paul
Read Ronald Wilson Reagan’s comments on the space station (below). Figure out why they never came true…and you will understand why “the vision” was no vision at all, why return to the Moon as you advocate it, and going to Mars as Zubrin advocates it is going nowhere…
The words are even better on video.
“Our second great goal is to build on America’s pioneer spirit…and that’s to develop that frontier. A sparkling economy spurs initiatives, sunrise industries and makes older ones more competitive.
Nowhere is this more important than our next frontier: space. Nowhere do we so effectively demonstrate our technological leadership and ability to make life better on Earth. The Space Age is barely a quarter of a century old. But already we’ve pushed civilization forward with our advances in science and technology. Opportunities and jobs will multiply as we cross new thresholds of knowledge and reach deeper into the unknown.
Our progress in space, taking giant steps for all mankind, is a tribute to American teamwork and excellence. Our finest minds in government, industry and academia have all pulled together. And we can be proud to say: We are first; we are the best; and we are so because we’re free.
America has always been greatest when we dared to be great. We can reach for greatness again. We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living and working in space for peaceful, economic, and scientific gain. Tonight, I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned space station and to do it within a decade.
A space station will permit quantum leaps in our research in science, communications, and in metals and lifesaving medicines which could be manufactured only in space. We want our friends to help us meet these challenges and share in their benefits. NASA will invite other countries to participate so we can strengthen peace, build prosperity, and expand freedom for all who share our goals.
Just as the oceans opened up a new world for clipper ships and Yankee traders, space holds enormous potential for commerce today. The market for space transportation could surpass our capacity to develop it. Companies interested in putting payloads into space must have ready access to private sector launch services. The Department of Transportation will help an expendable launch services industry to get off the ground. We’ll soon implement a number of executive initiatives, develop proposals to ease regulatory constraints, and, with NASA’s help, promote private sector investment in space.”
Ronald Wilson Reagan
As it is currently and in the foreseeable future practiced the American people get nothing from a space effort, other then the joy of writing the checks…and we don’t even do that any more…our kids do.
Robert G. Oler
Comment by Robert G. Oler — August 11, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
THANK YOU. Very much appreciate you calling attention to Mr. Marburger’s testimony before the Augustine Commission. When he repeats phrases like, “No deadline should be set for the return to the moon.”, people should stand up and take notice. He is not “anti-moon” as some have suggested (*cough Orlando Sentinel *cough). You must understand where he is coming from…what the history behind the statements is…which you obviously understand. I did not, until I read more, and I very much appreciate your column now enlightening the rest of the “space” crowd. THANK YOU.
Comment by THANK YOU — August 11, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
[...] distracting us away from it. Reading the summary of Dr. John Marburger’s testimony last week here really sharpened my view of what we are doing and space and where we need to go from here. What are [...]
Pingback by Matt Wronkiewicz's Weblog » Blog Archive » Are the pieces falling into place? — August 12, 2009 @ 2:50 am
Robert,
I’ve let you have your say, here above and at length in the previous post. You have nothing more to contribute to this discussion. Please post your future thoughts on your own blog.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 12, 2009 @ 5:32 am
The BIG question (IMHO) is that given the above and the current exigencies that NASA faces; can it *in itself* CHANGE? Or will external agencies be required. This Space Cadet feels that NASA has become too ossified and has some ideas. (Follow link for Handwaving and Hyperbole.)
Looking forward to today’s Meeting tho’. Should be a cracker!
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/376015main_August%2012%20Meeting%20Agenda%20-%20Final.pdf
Ronald (Wilson) Reagan Building
Comment by brobof — August 12, 2009 @ 7:54 am
Let’s face it, the O’bama administration wants to use money slated for space exploration and use it on his own pet programs. There’s no support, vision or any leadership regarding manned space exploration at the White House anymore. Sure, O’bama will speak wistfully and eloquently about space exploration but he won’t do anything substantial. Face it folks, we’re going nowhere. Watch funding for all of NASA to be slashed as we continue to hitch a ride on Soyuz space capsules. All you space supporters and dreamers, you’ll all go to your grave never seeing Amercians walk on the Moon again, let alone Mars.
Comment by Dan Roberts — August 12, 2009 @ 9:14 am
In football it is hard to get one player, sized and trained to play one position, to play a different position. Can you imagine a 300 lb. defensive lineman trying to think and play like a cornerback, or quarterback? NASA is a 300 lb rocket scientist. It only knows how to build rockets and spacecraft. Trying to get today’s NASA to seriously think about working and living on another planetary body, developing surface based assets, living off the land, and promoting economic potential is about as hopeless as a “hail mary”.
Comment by John G. — August 12, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Looks like Robert Oler took time off from flying imaginary solo fighter missions in Iraq, pretending to advise John McCain and/or John McCain on matters of great importance, and paling around with his make believe astronaut pals to drop a load of silliness on us all.
Comment by Roo Orbijet — August 12, 2009 @ 11:07 am
Remember what the economic incentives of government programs are, and VSE/ESAS will make much more sense.
Private enterprise serves the consumer, because the consumer pays for it voluntarily and may easily switch to another service provider if service is relatively poor.
Government takes money from people by threat of violence (pay your taxes or we throw you in jail or shoot you). They have *no* incentive to serve the taxpayer. They have *every* incentive to serve those who give them money — the politicians who are trying to appease their constituencies. This is why the segmented SRB design was chosen in the first place, even tho it was by far the worst design out of 4 contenders. Government programs are chosen based on how well they favor certain groups with political ‘pull’.
Also, government programs are rewarded for failure. If your program fails, that means you didn’t have enough money and should be given more. If you succeed, that means you should be given more money so you can succeed further. There is *no* mechanism for readily inducing a shrinkage or efficiency increase, other than some vague and quickly forgotten promises to the taxpayers every 2, 4, or 6 years.
In short, government can’t go out of business, so they have no reason to be efficient. They are several steps removed from the taxpayers whos labor supports them; so they have *no* incentive to get you or I into space. Because of this, we should give them as little money as possible, so they will waste as little as possible.
Comment by Carl — August 12, 2009 @ 11:10 am
First, Paul, you did an excellent and elloquent job summarizing Marburger’s prespective for those of us who didn’t know it. Second, i think that s little stronger oversight of NASA might help, and in particular NASA’s Strategic Plan developed by OSTP as an example of what could be done. Let them give NASA the focus. Case in point: the emphasis and priority on ISS has been heavily skewed toward the facility and astronaut needs at the expense of payloads. A stronger mandate in a Strategic Plan, defined outside of NASA would have balanced the activity on ISS to get more of a response for payloads. The same for ISRU in early lunar outpost discussions. ISRU is practically gone now, even though this seems like more of the intent from Marburger’s perspective… I don’t think NASA is that good at setting its own priorities.
Comment by Tony Lavoie — August 17, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
Paul
Excellent exposition on Marburger’s thoughts and directions. If NASA had taken that route, Augustine II would not have happened and we would be well on the way to the Moon by now.
Comment by Dennis Wingo — August 22, 2009 @ 2:33 pm