AirSpaceMag.com

President John F. Kennedy, May 25, 1961: “I believe that this nation should commit itself…..”

Tomorrow is the 50^th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s special address to Congress – a request for supplemental appropriation for a variety of projects but most famously remembered for the announcement of his Man-Moon-Decade goal of Project Apollo.  That event, cited by space advocates and excerpted in space and history documentaries, is remembered as the pinnacle of American leadership in space policy.

When President Kennedy announced his Moon landing goal for America, no world power was capable of accomplishing such a feat.  By winning the “Moon race,” America would demonstrate to the non-aligned (and supposedly undecided) world that a free, democratic system could win against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ repressive, communist regime. The Soviet’s then-advantage in rocketry did not give them a leg up on a manned race to the Moon as both countries would have to develop and build a new system to deliver men to the lunar surface.  Congress and enthusiastic Americans accepted this audacious challenge, winning not only the race to the Moon (within the decade) but also developing a strong economy through technological and scientific breakthroughs.

The subsequent forty-year span since Apollo ended has seen space enthusiasts and policy makers searching for the “holy grail” of renewed greatness, believing (because of events following President Kennedy’s bold direction) that presidential statements can make it happen again.  The most recent articulation of this belief comes from one of the most insightful students of the JFK decision, Prof. John Logsdon, whose new book (John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon) focuses on the Apollo decision and its subsequent impact on space policy.  Logsdon places particular emphasis on a supposed change of heart by Kennedy after the Moon race was well underway.  In citing two occasions where Kennedy publicly proposed to the Soviets that we go to the Moon together, Logsdon believes that had he lived, Kennedy would have retooled the race away from a nationalistic competition to joined hands with the Soviets in a cosmic Kumbaya reach for the Moon.

Though Logsdon recognizes that the unique aspect of Apollo came about as a manifestation of Cold War competition (something he believes does not prevail today), he sees JFK’s later comments regarding cooperation as providing us with the “holy grail” of continued space exploration going forward.  “I kind of fall back on presidential leadership,” he said. “I doubt this is going to happen, but I would hope that on the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s own speech, next Wednesday, President Obama has something positive to say about working together internationally to find a global strategy for exploration… I would not hold my breath on that happening, but something like that needs to be done.”

After years of reminding space students that the Apollo decision is not a good historical guide for setting a space agenda, Logsdon wants President Obama to resurrect space using the force of a Kennedyesque pronouncement – not as a national challenge, but as he believes Apollo would have developed had Kennedy lived to redirect it:  an international project of cooperation that will financially support space exploration.  By passing the JFK space leadership “torch” to President Obama, Logsdon envisions the Apollo presidential challenge resurrected and revitalized (this time to Mars, the long-held and sought after dream of many space advocates).  But this vision rewrites history:  Apollo wasn’t about space, it was about war, where presidential leadership is needed and required.

The problem with applying Logsdon’s reasoning to the current U.S. space policy morass is that, as with our endless debate about heavy lift vs. other launch vehicle options, it confuses means with ends.  Whether we go into space with or without a bold presidential declaration is secondary to WHY we are doing it.  Because we have not stated what we are trying to achieve, arguments about how we go about it, whether in terms of rockets, destinations, declarations or participants, leave us still sitting on the launch pad (soon, only on a Russian launch pad).  Without an agreed upon national purpose, space has become a political toy, vulnerable to changes in direction with each new administration.

On the 50^th anniversary of Kennedy’s rightly famous speech, the real question before us remains unaddressed and in some respects, unasked.  I ask it now:  What are we trying to accomplish with our national civil space program?  By answering that question and establishing a realistic and reachable national goal, America will establish a lasting space industry and presence, one undeterred or hobbled by changing political winds.

I have my own answer to this question, which I have discussed here and elsewhere in detail.  Space development is an essential, irreplaceable part of everyday life in 21^st Century America; we have charted a course whereby we must learn the skills of creating more capability in space, including the building and maintenance of larger, more capable space assets (as well as protecting existing ones).  To proceed, we need a reusable and extensible Earth-Moon space transportation system.  I believe that one can be created through the production and use of the material and energy resources of the Moon.

Such a transportation system will extend human reach into the Solar System beyond low Earth orbit.  By demonstrating the viability of resource extraction off planet, individual and joint investments will materialize in many forms and from many sectors, spurring on a new and burgeoning space industry.  This template contrasts significantly with an elitist, academic exercise in scientific data collection wrapped in the worn out mantra of “exciting” the public.  Our national interests will be best served through cislunar development and space resource utilization.

If these are desirable goals, then how we go about achieving it can be the subject of legitimate debate.  Until we address the objective of a large-scale national expenditure for space, presidential announcements will never possess the power or the effect Kennedy’s words had in bringing about a great era of American productivity and pride. The United States is at a critical crossroads. Will we lead or will we be content to follow?

Eager students meet old curmudgeon: The Kingwood HS Debate Team meets with me (far right) at the Lunar and Planetary Institute, May 3, 2011

A perennial hand-wringing topic among policy geeks is America’s decline in math and science proficiency.  This sentiment has been expressed the entire 30 years I’ve worked on space science and exploration – new generations don’t care about space, can’t do math and science, can’t think properly and the country’s going to hell in a hand basket.  Complaint about the decline in our ability is something passed from one generation to the next.  Today’s youth are being corrupted by iPods, Facebook and hip-hop; when I was a kid, it was Frisbees, MAD magazine and the Beatles.

There is a continuous stream of doom-laden reports outlining the decline of American youth in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (called STEM).  In this country, most Ph.D.s in science and technology are now foreign-born (these reports don’t mention that most often, they stay here, adding to our technical knowledge base).  Multiple factors are suggested as contributors to this decline, with the lack of an inspiring, exciting space program long believed to be important by many advocates.  This meme, of long currency in space policy circles, has some flaws.

Origins of the association between space exploration and science education go back to the days of Sputnik –the “ping” that shocked and alarmed the country.  This event prompted loud public cries for somebody to “do something” about the educational decline of America’s youth (corrupted then by ’57 Chevys, hula-hoops and Elvis).  Congress responded in the usual manner – they threw money at the problem.  The National Defense Education Act of 1958 (interesting wording that) created a huge infrastructure largely dependent upon federal funding that directly answered the Soviet challenge in space.  The number of science graduates exploded over the next couple of decades, leading many to conclude that 1) the excitement generated by the Apollo program inspired these students to aspire to careers in science; 2) huge amounts of federal money can solve any problem.

Although Apollo is now a distant memory (or for many, a distant, historical event that they’ve only read about in third-hand accounts), the confluence of space and education is taken as a given by many in the business.  NASA spends a designated fraction of their budget on a process called “EPO” (Education and Public Outreach), designed to inform and inspire the next generation of scientists and explorers.  As you might expect, these efforts range from the interesting and innovative to the embarrassing (though well intentioned).

A perception has emerged that the problem lies not with the methodology, but with the product – because we are not doing anything in space that is “exciting,” we aren’t producing quality scientists and engineers.  This may well account for what sensible students – with an eye toward putting food on the table after they graduate – choose to study.  Then too, perhaps there are too many in the field already.  But with effort, excellence will find productive work; self-esteem and entitlement will not cut it in the long run, no matter what your field of endeavor.

Recently, I had the opportunity to directly interact with students at two ends of the education pipeline and found the experience highly encouraging.  In the first case, the father of a local second-grader asked if his son could visit and interview me.  The boy had chosen to write a semester paper (in second grade??) about the Moon. The child was both well spoken and well informed.  He asked relevant and very intelligent questions.   What is the value of the Moon?  What do we want to know about it and how do we find these things out?  Can people live there?

I found his questions and understanding of the problems and benefits of exploring the Moon to be at a very high level (much higher than many adult reporters who call me).  Then he asked me an unexpected question:  How fast does the Moon travel through space?  After initially drawing a complete blank, I suggested that we find out together and went on to calculate it on the spot.  We concluded that the Moon flies around the Earth at over 2200 miles per hour (much faster than he traveled down the freeway to visit me).  He was delighted by this episode of “science in action.”  I was delighted to be challenged by his understanding and his interest in the topic.

Around the same time, a high school debate coach contacted me.  He told me that next year’s debate question is “Should humans explore space?” and asked if I could assist his team, as they were collecting information for their briefing books.  Once again, I was pleasantly surprised by their level of knowledge and their understanding of complex issues.

We reviewed the history of the space program, and why and how the current policy confusion has developed.  These students were informed and sharp.  They had already read and digested a great deal of information – drawing insight and conclusions about issues the space community is embroiled in.  Their questions were both penetrating and logical, and sent a clear message of their desire to fully understand the technical and programmatic issues involved.

What did I conclude from my encounter with a sample of today’s youth?  Mostly, that reports of the demise of our Republic are premature.  These kids were smart and well informed.  They could assimilate new information and apply it to other topics in clever ways.  They had an enthusiasm for their subject that was both gratifying and surprising.  And, they are interested in space, regardless of the current “uninspiring” nature of the program.

Inspiration is great, but it’s a highly personal factor and its impact and importance are difficult to measure.  The current STEM/outreach process at NASA conflates excitement and inspiration, but they are two different things.  The circus entertains us but we find inspiration elsewhere.  We need to focus on building a stable space program that will give us long-term benefits – a step-wise, incremental program that gradually increases the extent of our reach into space.  Compared to the current policy chaos, it just might be inspirational too.

Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan and Norm Augustine testify before Congress on the new space direction (NY Times)

Apollo 17 Commander Eugene Cernan recently voiced his doubts and concerns over the future of the human spaceflight program, while former Lockheed-Martin CEO Norman Augustine reflected on the current state of our space “vision” and/or the possible lack thereof.  I found these perspectives by two giants of our national space program remarkable not in terms of what they think, but rather in how those in the space blogosphere have reacted to their positions.  Some “New Space” advocates accuse people who disagree with the new direction of being too stupid and stubborn to understand its benefits or too parochial and selfish (or a combination thereof) to realize that government sponsored spaceflight is simply political pork.

Many in the New Space media have disparaged Cernan’s comments about this administration’s direction in space.  Following each article, most comments attribute various nefarious or personal reasons for the position he holds.  In contrast, Augustine’s remarks are praised, mostly on the grounds that he has embraced the “new direction” of using “commercial” space entities to transport people and cargo to low Earth orbit.  I note in this dichotomy a recurring theme in the national debate we are having on the direction and tactical implementation of our national civil space program.  That theme has many dimensions, but can be summed up as follows:  if you agree with the new path, you are a wise, thrifty visionary, but if you have doubts or reservations about this path, you are a short-sighted reactionary, stuck in the past, a lover of political pork and incapable of understanding the true brilliance of the new policy.

What did Cernan actually say?  He has doubts about many of the claims made regarding “New Space,” specifically claims in the press about costs, schedule and capabilities.  Cernan’s point is that it’s easy to design paper rockets and make hyperbolic claims about “new approaches” but in the business of space, things don’t always work as expected.  Cernan also questions what markets will support commercial space (much of the focus is on NASA contracting with New Space companies to service the ISS with cargo and crew) and even questions the designation “commercial,” both on the grounds of the aforementioned non-existing markets and the reliance of some commercial space companies on NASA funding to develop their product.

What does Augustine have to say about this?  He is much more sanguine about the possibilities of commercial space, saying that they are coming along “better than I expected,” an assessment that is somewhat vague on metrics.  Augustine’s principal message is that NASA is not getting enough money.  He claims that another $3 billion per year would make all the difference between a good program and an “unexecutable” one.  He also took the time to take a couple of shots at one of his long-standing targets, the Moon as a destination, commenting that spending billions and 25 years to “go back to the Moon doesn’t inspire anybody.”  He did note that a brief stop at the Moon might be allowable, if it were really necessary on our way to Mars.

New Space companies claim that they are commercial enterprises developing new space vehicles.  If they are truly commercial, what markets do they serve?  NASA is a government agency and has contracted for products and services from its beginning.  A commercial company takes money from investors and sells a product or provides a service for profit.  Commercial companies have access to NASA technology, so why do they also require and receive government subsidies?

I don’t see anything in Gene Cernan’s remarks that I would characterize as “short-sighted.”  He is asking legitimate questions and expressing concerns about significant changes (and of the use of the term “commercial”) to an effort that he both deeply understands and to which he’s dedicated his life.  New Space advocates tell us that vast new markets await the advent of new commercial launch services and that they’ll be launching multiple payloads frequently, at a fraction of current launch costs.  If questioned further they dismissively wave off debate by saying NASA is simply a bloated federal agency and that the ticket to lower launch costs lies in putting those federal dollars into New Space hands.

In contrast, Augustine is pleased with the progress of commercial space companies.  And despite being dubbed “the mission to nowhere,” NASA and the administration appear undeterred about keeping Flexible Path as their guiding direction.  It is clear from this interview and some previous remarks that Augustine’s primary objective during the work of his committee was to eliminate the return to the Moon as an agency objective.  He clearly views lunar return (as many in NASA’s leadership also choose to characterize it) as a re-boot of Apollo, with the same objectives and (more or less) the same architecture, a gap-filler on the way to Mars.

For the last two years, I have discussed and documented the purpose of the Moon in the Vision for Space Exploration and how the Constellation/Augustine perspective is wrong.  The objective of going to the Moon is to learn how to live and work on another world using local resources to create new capabilities.  What perplexes many is that the Augustine committee report states that the ultimate rationale for human spaceflight is understanding how people might someday live and work in space and then it went on to eliminate the one goal (living and working on the Moon) relevant to that objective.

Some honestly oppose this new direction because they see it as fundamentally flawed – a shell-game attempt to divert attention away from the ongoing, systematic dismantling of our national space faring capability.  The exchange of a definitive goal (the Moon) for a “flexible” series of quasi-goals (an asteroid, martian moons) is a recipe for Brownian motion and nonproductive agency chaos.  “Investment” in studies of “new and revolutionary technologies” is a euphemism for widget-making, mostly of devices with limited or questionable relevance to future spaceflight.  And the transfer of responsibility for space launch and transportation to the “commercial” sector is simply government contracting by another name, only without the same product assurance.  Statements (marketing?) suggesting that SpaceX will send a human mission to “Mars in 10-20 years” does not engender confidence in the Chief Designer’s understanding of the realities of space travel.

Many educated, thoughtful people, with years of experience in space business, are concerned about this new direction.  They are speaking out not because they are old fuddy-duddies mired in past glories, but because they have serious issues about the claims being made and the irreparable harm being done to our national space capability.  They also see the removal of a clear strategic direction as a serious problem, one that will leave the agency burning significant amounts of money to little benefit.

As for my “rose colored” glasses, suffice it to say that I think Gene Cernan is right to be concerned about the future of space and that Norm Augustine is wrong about the Moon.  Some of us may have our heads in the sand, but that’s better than where the heads of some others are.