The Laughing Wolf

Models and Goals In Space

Rand Simburg touches on some very good points in regards space programs. He correctly points out that our own program is very much wedded to a 1950s/60s model that is largely no longer relevant. He also points out that there has been a critical failure in discussion of what we want to do in space.

In my post of Sunday, I primarily touched on why I think that something very drastic needs to be done. From past experience, it is clear that the culture at NASA is not going to change, at least not short of force majeure. I say this with great confidence both as a student of history and from my own experiences inside the beast. Window dressing is easy, and most of the so-called safety programs, quality programs, and related programs have been just that.

Since I think that this needs to be discussed in some detail, Sunday’s post was merely the start of the process. Not even a Den Bestian length post will do, since I think that it will take many such posts to lay out the various ideas and possibilities. To my mind, there is no better place to start than in the goals and models being used.

Why are we going to space?

This is the single most important question that needs to be asked, and the one almost never touched by partisans of any persuasion. The model we use now, pointed out so well by Rand, boils down in many respects to national pride. Both the U.S. and the USSR were in it for pride, for prestige, and for the military advantages that space provided.

That drive still manifests itself in almost every aspect of what we do in space. The shuttle is a potent symbol of American technological supremacy, and is flaunted as such. The Soviet Buran was intended as such, but its one and only flight resulted in its being dismissed. NASA funds a large amount of fundamental research in space, and touts the results as often as possible. While many of the results are ridiculed within the science community, it also needs to be noted that the most frequent critics are also those who are opposed to space, particularly to manned space efforts. That can, and often should, be put down to power and money plays, since many of the critics will condemn and in the same breath say that they should get the money for their research. Regardless, space-based research is a means of showing the flag and securing the program.

The problem is that this model simply does not make sense, and has not for some time. It is great for flag waving and for bureaucratic empire building, but nothing else. Accepting the premises of the posts by Rand and others on this subject, the question then becomes what do we want to do in space? Only when we have answered this question can be begin to select realistic, effective, and appropriate models for our endeavors. Only then, can we decide the best way to either restructure or replace NASA. Only then, can we determine appropriate regulatory environments for commercial activities.

So, why are we going to space and what do we want to do there?

The immediate response from many will be exploration, though sheer curiosity is the more honest answer. We want to know what is out there, how do things work in different locations and environments, from microgravity to various planetary environments. We want to find various limits, push them, and if possible push past them.

The second answer appears to be technological development. Launch systems are just a start, since many have pointed out the broad range of technology advancement that came from Apollo and the drive to the moon. Indeed, the computer revolution that has changed our lives owes its genesis to the race for space. Many in the development camp point out the potential in regards nanotechnology, biotechnology, and other ologies yet to be determined.

The third answer is settlement. Earth is the cradle of civilization, yet we cannot stay in the cradle forever. Various factions hold that it is a safety valve for overpopulation, a way of ensuring the survival of mankind, a way to deal with extremists by either sending them out or allowing the sane to escape the madhouse, a way of allowing wide scale social experimentation and engineering in isolated habitats, and a variety of other possibilities.

The fourth answer appears to be exploitation, the development of non-terrestrial resources. By making use of space-based resources, we can reduce, eliminate, or reverse ecological damage here; improve the quality of life; and bring in a new era of plenty for all.

There are others, of course, but these serve as a good start for our discussions. Let’s take a look at them and some of the assumptions that lie behind them.

Exploration is a wonderful thing, often as fun as it is dangerous. There have always been those with a drive to go see what is over the next mountain, at the bottom of the gorge, or beyond the edge of the horizon. Some have gone and explored all on their own, but over the years it became necessary to seek backing for such ventures since ships and supplies cost money. Before the full rise of the merchant class, the main source of such funds was from governments, who were looking for new territories and new sources of revenue. It was not altruism that caused Isabella to hock her jewels to fund Chris, but the possibility of gain for Spain.

In the past, companies have also funded research expeditions. Such funding, like that by Subaru today, gains the companies exposure/advertising and can gain them a direct return from what is found, be it material or intellectual treasure. Two separate things have severely restricted this. The first are the changes in the investment and regulatory environments. Whereas in the past companies were willing to invest in long-term research and goals, the rule today is short term gain and profit. This is encouraged by the regulatory environment as well as a large change in the makeup of the investment market. The second is that the government stepped in after WWII and began funding a variety of research programs.

The argument used for the latter was that no one company could afford to do the job, and that no consortium of companies would ever be formed to do it. The primary driver for this was the development by Germany of the jet engine and other advanced research being done. The jet had been largely ignored in the U.S., as had the work of Goddard in rocketry. The profits were quite nice as they were, thank you, and business had not pursued these avenues. Realizing that other countries could surprise us in the same way, the government began funding major science research.

This included aviation and space. NACA became NASA, and NASA has continued to grow. While aviation is definitely the little A in the name, other research had grown tremendously. From initial research into propulsion, materials, and such, NASA has expanded into fundamental research in all scientific disciplines. The basic argument remains that only the government can afford to do this, or is willing to do this. Yet, as shown by Subaru and other companies, this is not entirely true.

This also affects the technology development issue. Again, it is oft argued that it takes a huge government program to create the technology push. Without Apollo and the manned space program there would be no computer revolution. The fallacies in this argument are readily apparent, but it is still made and it is still accepted as gospel by many.

To my mind, one of the largest problems is the difference between the program then and now. Others have pointed out that during the moon race, NASA went and recruited the best and brightest from industry. In other words, these people had real-world experience and this was brought to bear on the problem. Where pure research was needed, they brought in help from academia. That does indeed need to be contrasted to today’s program where the majority of people at NASA have only worked at NASA, and may have even done their education through NASA.

With this, NASA has lost not only the external viewpoint and fertilization of new ideas, but the very diversity of ideas that allowed it to be so flexible in its heyday. Without this, how can even a new major program spur the technology development that we need?

The settlement idea is nice, but is not even the slightest blip on the government radar screen. If you can show a government, any government, how such can expand their territory or resource base, then you might start to get Isabella interested again. Until then, forget it. Settlement will require reliable launch, a good infrastructure, some serious financial backing, people willing to take a chance, and a suitable regulatory environment.

That brings us to the resource utilization concept. Even the most extreme supporter of government involvement will state that this really is a job for private industry. The problem is, that private industry has no way to get there. Given the cost of going through NASA, the NASA paperwork, and the regulatory environment and lack thereof, none are particularly interested. Until this changes, private industry is not going to be willing to consider the idea on any substantive level.

For the sake of argument, I am going to put forward the following ideas of what I want to do and how I think we can best get there from here. To follow-up on another comment from Rand, I agree that the political environment is such that doing away with NASA is not a politically feasible thing to do right now. Had the CAIB report and other things that were percolating in the background prior to Columbia been handled differently, it could have been a slam dunk. With the current lionizing of NASA, and NASA wisely placing its rear end in the laurels of past achievements – most notably Apollo – I think that it will be hard going. It may still be done, but I doubt it.

Even so, I plan to put forward here the seeds of what I think a new organization. This will get fleshed out a bit more in the days ahead, but for now just a bit more of a start.

It is my belief that we should be going to space to do all the things listed above. I do not, however, believe that most of them should be done by or through the government. My proposal is as follows.

First, I do not accept the idea that fundamental research can only be done or funded by the government. What I do accept, however, is that political realities dictate that some sort of push back the frontiers work will have to be done by a government agency for reasons of prerogative, power, and pork. In the days ahead, I plan to outline what I think such an agency should do, should not do, and how it can also harness the power that was behind much of NASA’s real successes – namely the power of business and ideological diversity.

Second, I think most of the rest can and should be done by private industry. What is needed here is a realistic regulatory environment, and a government that will enable and encourage instead of doing everything in its power to stifle. Also in the days ahead I intend to describe a framework, a model for how this can be done.

Third, I want to encourage others to take up this challenge. Don’t just write comments to posts, write major posts yourself on your site or submit same to sites such as mine, Winds of Change, or others. The more ideas, the more models put forward, the better the chance of coming up with an integrated whole that not merely makes sense, but will make good policy as well.

It is your space program, it is your future. It is up to you.

-30-