The Laughing Wolf

2003: The State Of Space

Originally, I was going to declare the state of space as dismal. One thing has happened to make me change my mind about that, however. There are any number of reasons to think that this has been a dismal year for space, and I will go through a few of them.

First, there is NASA and the loss of Columbia. The state of NASA might best be described as ludicrous, and I see little or no hope of this changing any time soon. NASA is no longer the “can do” agency, and has not been for some time. The decline began in the early 1970s, and became a freefall under Truly and a bungee jump without the rubber band under Goldin. This is not the time or place to go into the sad history of NASA, but to examine where and what it is right now.

NASA is an agency with no purpose other than to maintain its budget, centers, and power. It has no grand vision, no realistic drive in science, and a workforce that has suffered many blows of late. The fundamental science at NASA is reasonable science, but often lacks a clear justification for it being done at NASA.

As for launch vehicles, NASA has not developed anything truly new in more than 30 years. Efforts to develop new systems, reusable systems, and such have generated tons of papers, multitude of powerpoint presentations, and loads of studies: and not one working piece of bent metal. In other words, they have yet to deliver on any new or innovative launch system in at least a decade, and I would argue much longer.

Innovation and risk taking at NASA are dead. NASA has become an extremely risk-adverse agency, because any perceived failure of any type immediately brings out enemies in Congress, the Administration, the Old Media, and even in its own leadership. Having survived the Goldin years and some presentations, I can testify that it did not take much to be declared a failure or otherwise call down the wrath from on high. The result was that, especially at NASA Headquarters, people became increasingly unwilling to make even the most simple or basic declarative statement. Any statement that was made had to be backed up with multiple citations and proof, and even then the statement might not be made for fear that it might be somehow wrong in some other unspecified way.

Safety is a shibboleth at NASA that demands large amounts of time and money, to no realistic end. While it is officially denied, NASA has become a zero-defect/zero-tolerance agency. Safety meetings take hours each month to discuss all manner of hazards and ways to prevent workplace injury, lost time injuries, personal injuries offsite, and flight safety. The emphasis during my tenure there was mostly on the former, because flight safety was supposed to be assured and being addressed in a responsible and effective manner. After all, hours upon hours and dollars upon dollars were being spent upon it.

Which meant that all other defects had to be purged. There were to be no lost time injuries. Period. Yet, by regulation the first aid kits demanded for all offices and floors of buildings could not have band aids. If something was bad enough for a band aid, it meant that a trip to the infirmary or paramedics were needed. Net result was, unless you violated the rules and kept some in your desk, a good paper cut would become a lost time accident. This, in turn, resulted in yet more meetings, studies, and new workplace rules designed to prevent this new threat to the drive for perfect safety.

It is my opinion that this idiocy, which came from the highest levels of the Center and NASA, directly contributed to a loss of safety. It was the focus on the minute that allowed the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Columbia. NASA has, again in my opinion, failed to adequately address the problems identified, and Ifni only knows that only a few token sacrifices have been made in regards that loss.

And it was a loss. More than just the crew and orbiter, there was a loss of confidence in the agency, in space exploration, and a loss of valuable data and programs. Because of its failures in the launch development department, NASA only has one real way to get to space. With the fleet grounded, NASA is reduced to begging or buying rides from the Russians. While this is good for Russia and the Russian space program, it means that almost every major NASA research program is at a standstill.

Add to all this the demise of the only realistic program NASA had for encouraging commercial space activities, because it failed an ideological litmus test of the Bush Administration, and a very bleak picture emerges. It is made even darker by the fact that the administration has never openly announced any comprehensive policy or plan towards space.

There is, allegedly, a group working on same for an announcement sometime in the coming year. The problem is, no one truly knows who is working in or with this group, or how to present things for consideration. The latter is crucial to any realistic plans for space, because it is very likely that the only model being considered is a governmental model.

For years, the idea has been that only the government could, or was willing to, fund space activities. It was too expensive for any one company, and no company would be willing to take the risks to put humanity into space. This was the public rational put forward in large measure because space was largely a military development. The technology and plans had to be safeguarded from the enemy, and the civilian and military space race was the result.

That has been over for quite some time, and commercial space the goal set since Reagan. Yet, NASA has bitterly resisted and fought any such efforts, even though its own Charter, not to mention the Commercial Space Acts, mandate it. Commercial is a very dirty word at NASA, and it is fought tooth and nail. One of the more effective means of doing so has been to promote and cite at every turn the cost/risk meme/model.

Because of the history and 60s successes of NASA, and the repeated use of this meme, is that very few people ever stop to consider that there is a box there, much less think outside of it. The so-called major aerospace companies are making a lot of money off the current model, and probably are not that interested in major changes to it. Few, if any, in Congress truly contemplate that the world and space exploration has changed. The concept of space exploitation is just bad science fiction, after all.

The real danger here is that the Bush Administration tends to do things all on its own. It does not leak trial balloons or engage in any of the typical things an administration does to test or tilt the waters. This can be, and for the most part is, a very good thing. The problem lies in the fact that there is no way to tell if anyone in the space policy circle can or will consider that the governmental model is obsolete.

Recently, I had the opportunity to see just how deeply the idea has been planted that only NASA can do space, and that only superbeings can be astronauts. In some channel surfing, I came across E! talking about celebrity Ooopses right in time to find that Lance Bass was in the top 25 of all time. Why did he deserve this? Turns out it was his attempt to go into space. Was it because the production company that was to pay for everything didn’t? No, the major reason given was that he, as an entertainer, had no business trying to go to space. Space, after all, was only for the elite.

This bit of bullshit was truly depressing. Admittedly, this was a bunch of actors and entertainment reporters so I was not expecting brains, much less brain surgery. What made it so depressing was how this showed a mindset that is firmly imbedded in a significant portion of the public, largely courtesy of NASA. NASA has for years pushed the best and brightest as a major part of its PR campaign. NASA goes so far as to ignore the IAF definition of what constitutes an astronaut to declare that only its chosen few career crews can be called astronauts. It is expressly forbidden to call anyone other than a career civil servant at NASA who has been duly chosen for the corps, an astronaut. All those guest scientists and politicians who have flown? They are forbidden to call themselves astronauts and anyone writing for or about NASA is very strongly encouraged to follow this practice.

NASA has seized this term as its own, and puts a very rigorous definition upon it. They also defend this practice by hook and by crook, for it promotes the idea that NASA is the best, and that only NASA and the hand-picked few can do space.

The rest of the world is not much brighter a picture. The Europeans are still firmly wedded to the governmental agency concept. Their idea of space commercialization is to form new companies with government assistance and ownership, and then work with or through the governmental agencies. Nor have they been immune to setbacks, and I was not happy at the apparent loss of Beagle 2. Not just because of the scientific loss it represents, but I also admit to a sentimental attachment from being owned by a beagle and having Beagle as a radio call sign for a few years.

Sad to say, but the people closest to any concept of free market space capitalism are the Russians. The problem here is a lack of funding, and being wedded to a NASA that tries to scuttle any truly commercial act by the Russians. Bring up a tourist? Not in our station or part of station! Advertising? Again, not in our station! Doing anything else that smacks of nasty free enterprise? Only in your vehicles and if we can block that we will. Now be a good serf and do what your betters say.

Amidst all this, however, is a great ray of hope. Proof that the governmental model is not the only one. For on December 17, a very momentous and under-reported (in the Old Media, at least) event took place. High above the Mojave, something wonderful happened.

Without government funding or support, developed by private financing and a lot of hard work by many talented people who are not a part of NASA or any other space program, a new spaceship broke the sound barrier. What is the big deal you say? We’ve broken the sound barrier for years, decades even. What is the big whoop?

To put it simply, this is pretty much the first time that any group has put together a manned vehicle to do this without government involvement. Nor will it be the last. XCOR and the companies competing for the X-Prize are all working towards this goal. Nor is that the end of it, for they intend to go to space inexpensively and on a regular basis.

Forget NASA, ESA, and all the rest. Private companies are going to space. The successful test flight of SpaceShipOne has placed us more than halfway to the goal. The technology has its proof of concept, as does the control systems and such. Now, all that remains is to go all the way, as soon as development and regulation allow.

Is there a place for government in space? Yes, there is. The government needs to set realistic policies and regulations for commercial, private, or other space ventures. The government can assist with developing truly advanced technologies, or allowing companies access to facilities so as to aid private development of same. The government can help limit liability for all space ventures, just as it does for aviation. There are a host of things government can do, but has to date not done.

What is needed now is not some grand re-do of the Apollo program, but a real space race. Not between governments or political ideologies, but between companies or private groups. This race, this competition, will result in the real next generation of launch vehicles. It will encourage innovation, risk taking, and all those other things that are an anathema to governmental agencies, but are crucial to development. It will give us not one system, but many proven systems so that there is redundancy and cost-effectiveness.

The governmental model has been broken. Frankly, I am not surprised at the lack of coverage given by the Old Media as it is probably about as much an anathema to them as it is to NASA. Well, that may not be entirely fair. Most Old Media reporters truly don’t have a clue why the real celebration of the Wrights was so important. They lack the subject knowledge to grasp it. Others see it as something bad, because it was done by an evil company who is bent on, gasp, making a profit rather than simply doing something noble for humanity. The best coverage and analysis, therefore, is in the New Media. This also means it is spreading, because there are few bottlenecks to block or distort it.

For the destruction of the governmental model of space, I would have to change my description of the state of space in 2003 to hopeful. The beauty is, however, that there is another reason to feel that way. The governmental model has been destroyed, and a new model has begun to emerge.

For decades, space enthusiasts have used the models of the exploration of the New World, as well as those of sailing and aviation, to describe the possibilities. The problem is, none of these are truly valid in and of themselves. There are portions of each that apply, but none truly apply to this bright new world.

Yes, going to space and exploring and exploiting does have parallels to the development of the New World. There are treasures and resources to be reaped, and just as our forebearers had no clue what awaited them, we have no real idea of what will come. A good example of this was the need for wood. One of the largest reasons for early settlements was to send back resources to the Old World, and wood was one very much needed given the loss of forests in England, france, and elsewhere. Yet, it proved to be much better to process the wood where it was being harvested, and simply ship home medium to finished products instead of the raw materials. This, in turn, created an industrial base in the New World. Much the same is likely to happen with space, since it just makes a lot more sense to process on the spot. Nice thing is, there is abundant energy, vacuum, and other resources for this. You also don’t have to worry about air, ground, and water pollution.

One portion of the aviation model has also been proven true. Contrary to popular belief, the Wrights didn’t get a single government grant to develop their first plane. Nor, for that matter, many of the follow-ons. In other words, the government was not needed to start this expensive and extremely risky new industry. In point of fact, the government hamstrung efforts for many years, and most of the interest and commercial business for the Wrights and others came from the governments and companies of Europe.

It can be argued that except for the profound military implications of space, that is what would have happened here. The government had little or no interest in rocketry or space until they were almost literally hit in the head by the military applications. Scaled Composites has just shown that the government is not needed as a sponsor, which raises questions about the real need for governmental funding. In the process, another portion of valid model is developed and proven.

By raising or proving new portions or complete models, the way is paved for doing much more. Models are needed for funding, for realistic and positive regulation, and for identifying new ventures. A door has indeed been opened, and what waits beyond is anyone’s guess. All that truly matters is that the door has been opened.

If the Bush administration will truly honor the ideals it has stated, and if you the Citizens will exercise your rights and responsibilities to be involved and make yourself heard, then next year’s state of space may well be described as rosy. What it will take is a realistic and meaningful space policy that is not married to a long-dead cold-war model, but embraces the true spirit of aviation, free enterprise and the new model of space.

-30-