The Laughing Wolf: What Should A Space Agency Do?

August 28, 2003

What Should A Space Agency Do?

To continue the discussion, what should a good space agency do? What are the essential functions of an agency that is supposed to foster the development of aviation and space? Particularly commercial aviation and space, as the NASA charter – along with various commercial space acts – calls for?

NASA is an easy target right now, but a few more comments are called for simply to finish laying some groundwork. As noted previously, NASA has become insular instead of diverse. This very much applies to developing new launch technologies. Check the record and you will find the same gang pursuing the same goals for some time. You may also note that the extent of industry involvement is almost entirely limited to that same gang, with the occasional exception of a different satellite company who may be asked to provide specs for payload considerations.

This is great if you are going to continue with Big Dumb Boosters, essentially ICBMS writ large if not simply converted ICBMs. It does little to promote the development of truly novel technologies, since none of the private space developers, be they launch or any other service, are consulted. If you can provide me with details of anyone at NASA going to Roton, X-COR, or Burt Rutan and asking them for their needs and inputs, it will be the first time that I know of it being done on a serious basis.

So, accepting that some form of government agency is needed to push the frontiers for reasons political, power, and pork, what should it be doing?

The list that I have come up with is fairly short and sweet: launch/propulsion technology; essential fundamental science; altruistic space exploration. These are the areas where government involvement could be argued to be essential. These are also things that NASA has been tasked to do, with very mixed results and a disconnect from the real world. How then could this be accomplished without running into some of the same problems?

Part of the answer lies with the founding fathers, who went with checks and balances. Would that all government agencies were forced to have them. In this case, the checks and balances should be tied to private enterprise and measured results. The latter may take a special exemption from the civil service acts, but it would not be the first time that was done.

The best way to start is with an agency that is specifically limited in what it can do. Part of the reason for the problems with NASA are the field centers that continue to expand – often to the detriment of the organization – and continually try to be the tail wagging the dog. By eliminating “centerism” at the start many problems can be avoided.

The other way to limit is to provide a focus, a concrete mission that is not open-ended. The best way to do this is to tie research and development to specific goals, preferably those established by industry. If this organization is to be truly useful, it needs to really produce results, not papers and reports. So, if a company has a materials problem, a propulsion problem, or some other technology problem, this could be the place for a research partnership to solve it. The company gets what it needs to advance, the agency does research and work tied to a tangible and measurable objective, and everyone benefits.

Exploration does need to be a part of this, but that does not mean that everything has to be done in-house. One of the early strengths of NASA was collaboration, bringing in academia and industry to address issues and get results right then, not 15 years later. This can be the case again. Exploration can become a multi-talented regime, and this can also be applied to research avenues as well. Wherever possible, commercial hardware, launch systems, and other resources can be used.

Where specialized systems are needed, then they can be built in-house or in collaboration with others who have related expertise. Everything that goes up does not have to be government issue. Let it be government issue where truly appropriate, but let it be privately developed or from a university where appropriate as well.

The organization should not have a monopoly on launch vehicles, services, sites, or manned exploration. An astronaut is anyone who has been in space, not a career civil servant.

This deserves more thought and flesh, but I am going to stop tonight so I can get a good night’s sleep before the next round of sleep depravation. What are your thoughts on this? What do you think a true aerospace agency should do? Should not do? What checks and balances should be in place? I have my ideas, but cross-pollination works here as well. Come on, make some comments and leave some ideas. Let’s see if we can come up with something that will fly.

-30-

Posted by wolf1 at August 28, 2003 02:14 AM | TrackBack

Comments

NASA should have been converted to the off-world equivalent of the USGS-- they do the base mapping, inventory of resources and science research in cooperation with universities, and leave the economic development and operations to someone else.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 29, 2003 04:31 AM

Roles of a space agency:

Diversify life's portfolio. Earth is home to all known life in the universe. One uncharted asteroid could wipe out life on Earth. We need to put life on the moon, on Mars, and in the asteroid belt to increase life's chances of survival.

Advance science. Basic science provides the building blocks for breakthroughs that lead to better lives for humans and help us understand and protect our environment.

Encourage the market to develop space resources. Government/industry partnerships should lead to market driven, private enterprises. Once in space, private firms will allocate resources more effectively to develop resources for mankind's benefit. Only market forces can keep us in space for the long-term.

Posted by: tom corbin at August 29, 2003 04:50 AM

One important thing for a space agency would be to make sure the public is told the truth about the high frontier. About the prospects.
Imagine this: Columbus gets back after his first trip to Isabella. "What did you find ?". "I dont know yet, we didnt see much." "Ok, here's plenty of ships and plenty of men, make a new trip, go further"
After second trip, "what did you find?" "Oh, there's some land there, but its barren and desolate, no riches, no nothing. But give me more money, i'll see if i can come up with some use for it out there" "Ok .. "

Basically, public should be very well aware of what kind of power stations would provide cleanest energy, where millions of tons of precious metals can be found, and that theres actually abundant oxygen to breathe on moon.
All they know right now, is that space is this vast empty place, where some pretty pictures can occassionally be taken. And that its intrinsically hideously expensive.
Its largely the result of what NASA has been telling and what it has not. For instance, go ask NASA what lunar colony would cost, and what landing humans on Mars would cost. Then go ask the same questions from Artemis project people and dr. Zubrin. Why the disparity ? And now think of how well voices of each party are regularly heard, due to PR budget differences ...

Posted by: krt at August 29, 2003 10:17 AM

Just to amend my post above:
Start here http://www.eere.energy.gov/ and see if you can find a slightest mention about prospect of solar power sats. In education, in research, in career opportunities. Anywhere.

Posted by: krt at August 29, 2003 10:38 AM

By accident I ran across discussions of some *very* large vacuum chambers that NASA has for testing things like the lunar lander. Obviously these types of test facilities are very expensive, and arguably the US does not need several.

Just providing this kind of infrastructure for commercial (and private) developers would be a good government mission.

Posted by: Derek Woolverton at August 30, 2003 07:19 AM

Hmph. I notice our favorite "authority on everything", Barney Gumble, hasn't made an appearance. Did he lose his stolen cue cards...? ;-)

Excellent work, Laughing Wolf!

--TwoDragons

Posted by: TwoDragons at September 1, 2003 11:52 PM

I think there should be 2 levels of interactuion between NASA and Industry. On the first level, Industry should have the ability to use NASA resources for R&D. For instance, imagine boeing is attempting to build an AJAX weapon system and the engineers are unable to properly simulate the conditions behind the plasma screen. NASA should be able to provide topical theoretical expertise and possibly fund a classified research vehicle to examine regions of that unexplored flight envelope. Results of that program should be open to all U.S. companies as domestic proprietery information, and treated as low-level classified military data- released under the same discretion that applies to allied foreign military sales. no more free lunches for european and asian parasites.

The second level of interaction should be the contracting level. NASA should not design or build launch systems. NASA should provide RFP's stating what the specifications are for a research vehicle, and contract industry to compete and build that vehicle (using the same system the DOD uses). NASA should have program managers and scientists, not engineers.

NASA should also not operate launch or test facilities. Launch facilities should be operated by industry, in the same manner that the USAF Arnold test center is run by contractors (currently sverdrup corp)

Posted by: sleepy at September 2, 2003 06:48 PM

I read somewhere that NASA, because it wants everyone to launch using its rockets, will severely undercut the prices that any competitors would quote, using public money to make up the difference. For example, if it takes 1 million dollars to launch a rocket, and ACME Rocketry is willing to do it for 750 thousand dollars, NASA will charge 700k and make up the rest.

I think I read this in an editorial in the Washington Times, though I'm not certain.

Anybody know if this is the case? If so, it seems to me that this is seriously undermining Mankind's attempts at space exploration as a whole.

Though I may just be talking out of my arse.

Thank you, Laughing Wolf, for providing this forum.

Posted by: Royden Wood at September 2, 2003 08:03 PM

I believe that NASA should be split into two organizations. One (call it the US Space Corp or something like that) that deals with exploration and manning places like the ISS. The second organization should be for regulation of the space launch industry. Kind of like the FAA of the space industry. Then, sit back and let the private sector pursue space. We could be landing on Mars in 10 years or less, and have our first permanent Moon base in less than 5 years if this happened. Its time to stop propping up Boeing, Northrup-Grumman and McDonnel-Douglas. Let them scrounge around like the rest of the private sector.

Posted by: Shadowmane at October 23, 2003 01:53 AM

Comments are Closed.