Do We Need a Space Program?

First my friends, I must apologize for the lapse in time. Even tho I never intended for this to be a daily blog, neither I didn't intend to let nearly year or so elapse. Shortly after my last entry I had a hard drive crash on my laptop. Then the laptop was stolen. Such is life. I went for several months before purchasing another laptop. But now I'm back in the game. So let’s get on with it.

Why?
The question arises every so often, “Why do we have a Space program?” Usually it is accompanied by another phrase like, “That money could be better spent for ....”

To Space Advocates, having a space program requires no justification other than it exists. Space Advocates dream of the day that interplanetary travel or even interstellar travel is routine. Whether they are a Star Trek utopian or a Browncoat libertarian, they see a space program as the necessary and natural course of events.

International Space Station

But to other people, they look at the billions of dollars spent on the Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS) as a waste of money. They see the United States spending billions of dollars so that an elite few can float around in the ISS and they ask, “How about spending that money here on Earth to help the veterans, the elderly, and the homeless?”

Advocates come back with the standard litany of spinoffs, prestige, national pride, inspiration for the children, etc. But the fact is that all the technologies probably would have come to light sooner or later without NASA. And besides, they’ve happened. They’re past tense and there is no guarantee of future development.

NASA has enjoyed a good reputation that has kept it from being sliced to pieces tho not protected it entirely from cuts. However, we’ve never faced a budget crisis like we do now. The new “Age of Austerity” will soon be forcing higher premiums for Granny’s Medicare. How do we justify to Granny that she much pay higher Medicare premiums while we spend billions so that people can float around in Space?

I know what you’re going to say ... NASA’s budget is less than 1% of the total amount spent by the U.S. government. Cutting NASA won’t prevent the premium increase. True but irrelevant. Granny doesn’t give a hoot about some esoteric science project to measure global warming, telescopes in Space, or dark matter. Unless she works at a chicken farm, she doesn’t care that a vaccine for salmonella came out of the research on the Space Station. Granny probably knows that we went to the Moon many years ago but can’t even do that now so she wonders just what the heck are we spending those billions on when it could be going to her Medicare instead?

Purpose
In the Age of Austerity, exploration of Space needs to pass the Granny test. How will the money spent in Space help her? It needs to be something that she can easily relate to and something that directly affects her. Only a personal purpose will drive Granny to support a major human space mission.

Recently I’ve been pondering this. I was reading thru some of the usual Space-related websites when the answer flash before my eyes like a meteor streaking across the night sky (Hint). Over the pass few years there has been an increasing amount of chatter about the need to develop a way to deflect asteroids away from Earth. In his recent book, Reopening the Space Frontier, John Hickman mentions establishing a lunar base as part of a planetary defense network against a rogue asteroid. To be honest, this was a subject that previously I had just waved away. After all, a space program robust enough to get us back to the Moon would probably be able to handle an asteroid mission. Wellll ... things changed last year when Obama killed the idea of returning to the Moon. Soon we’ll even retire the Shuttle and then even Bruce Willis won’t be able to save us from Armageddon.

Is this even an serious threat? Even tho NASA believes that it has located 90% of the asteroids, that 10% is still a huge number of unknowns swirling around out there.

In January, 2010, international experts met in Mexico City to discuss “the best way to establish a global detection and warning network to monitor potential asteroid threats to all life on Earth.”

In June, 2010, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R – CA) introduced H.R. 5587, titled: "To establish a United States Commission on Planetary Defense and for other purposes."

In August, 2010, some scientists proposed ATLAS, short for the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System, which calls for two telescopes to serve as an early warning system against incoming asteroids. The scientists “hope such a system could provide many hours or days notice of an impending Earth impact.” Days or hours? That won’t give anyone much time except to run.

UPDATE 20 Aug 2011: There is a Planetary Defense website.

The Russians are being a little more aggressive. Russia is considering a plan to launch a spacecraft capable of moving the huge asteroid Apophis in a bid to protect Earth from an impact. Fortunately, it’s not due for about 20 years and may not be a threat. But at least the Russians are on the right track. They realize that we need to start developing the technology now.

OK, so it does appear that there is a possibility of an asteroid hitting Earth and causing significant damage. Does this pass the Granny test? I think so. If you tell Granny that there are some big, honking asteroids buzzing around that could crashed down on her house in her lifetime, she might be willing to look elsewhere for her premium money. If she still isn't convinced then breakout the trusty old laptop and show her some pretty amazing videos of tiny asteroids that put on a fiery display.

 

Here are a few:

Police dash cam of meteor over Edmonton Nov, 2008

Edmonton meteor Nov 2008

Meteor lights up sky in S. Africa 21 Nov 2009

Fireball lights up Midwest sky 14 Apr 2010

Organization
In the past I haven’t been an internationalist in the sense that I think international cooperation was a priority of a space program. I didn’t feel the need to go out and find an international partner for projects. Many of us thought that Neil Armstrong's one small step would be the beginning of a new age of exploration ... of American exploration ... continuing our great tradition of settling a new frontier. But alas, it turned out to be a high water mark as short-sighted politicians began asking one variation or another of the same ol' question, "Do we need to spend billions on a space program when we have so many problems to solve on earth?"

Obviously, I think the answer is yes. But this time it is a little different. Everyone on the planet has a stake in this. But that doesn’t mean that every country should be necessarily involved. I’m thinking that a consortium, league, federation, or confederation (but not Alliance as that has a negative connotation among the Browncoats) ... pick your name ... of the current spacefaring nations should oversee this project. They’re the ones with the technology and the money.

How do we reduce the politics and focus on the project? I suggest that the Consortium form an organization, for a lack of a better name, and call it the Space Patrol. It will function in a similar manner to the U.S. Coast Guard. The members of the Space Patrol, at least initially, will come from the countries of the Consortium but not on loan from their militaries. The members of the Space Patrol should not have divided loyalties. They shouldn’t be worried about their earthside careers or what their next assignments will be. The Patrol is their career until they resign or quit.

Nor do they all need to be PhDs and engineers. We have well-trained Sailors that handle the nuclear engines just fine on their ships, this would be no different. And like our Navy, the members of the Patrol must be willing to endure long tours of duty except there will be no ports of call in Space ... at least not initially.

Further, the Patrol headquarters should be based in Space itself. Perhaps on a space station in low earth orbit (LEO) or at Lagrange Point 5 (L5) or on the Moon. It may begin with a small station in LEO and later move. This will eliminate an debate among the members of the Consortium as to which country or countries will host the headquarters and bureaucracy of the Space Patrol. It will also reduce the tendency of an earthside Space Patrol bureaucracy that becomes more interested in its own comfort than the mission while keeping the focus on Space.

The mission of the Space Patrol will be to detect and deflect any asteroids that pose a threat to Earth. It can have secondary missions of clearing out debris in LEO and rescue missions.

So how does this help us in the "Age of Austerity"? I envision the Consortium being set up by a treaty among its members and thus would require strong bipartisan support to get it approved in the Senate. In order to get that bipartisan support, you'll need not only to convince Granny but the senators as well. Could we get away with just "agreements" and "contracts"? Perhaps but then you'd risk the future support as they would be easier to pull out of or ignore.

As part of the Consortium Treaty (still not going to call it the Alliance!), the members would pledge not only technology but a fix amount for X years that could be raised by agreement. Let's say that the US pledges $20 billion/yr for 10 years ... I know, that's more than NASA's current budget but it is a pittance of spending. Remember, this is not some esoteric science project like most of NASA's projects are. But rather, this is a continuing mission to literally save the planet. If China is on board, they could probably easily match that amount. The Russians, the Europeans, the Japanese ... Pretty soon we'd have some real money to actually get this done. If all pledge $20 billion/yr then just from those five that would be $100 billion/yr for 10 years for a total of $1 Trillion. With that amount of money plus technology and other support from the Consortium nations, we could get this set up and running within 10 years.

But, you say, they'll just take it from NASA. Possibly. However, remember, that technology and other support is part of the pledge. NASA, as would the ESA and the space agencies of the other countries, would still have a role to play in funding research for useful technology and they have other scientific research to do as well.

What about exploration?

Remember that I said before that any program robust enough to go to the Moon would be robust enough to handle an asteroid? Well, not only is the reverse true but even more so. A program robust enough to base a Space Patrol and provide the technology to rendezvous with an asteroid would require a Moonbase for raw materials. It would simply be too wasteful to manufacture and haul all the necessary materials, fuel, food, and water up to Space from Earth. It would make more sense to use the raw materials available on the Moon. So private enterprise would be going to the Moon along with the Space Patrol. The Space Patrol would not get bogged down in like NASA has in non-Patrol activities. The U.S. Coast Guard doesn't buy raw materials and build their ships. They contract with a ship builder. The Patrol would do the same. If the contract is big enough, the builders will find a way to get the raw materials on the Moon to reduce their costs.

A program that is robust enough to rendezvous with an asteroid and deflect it would also be robust enough to exploit it. So gathering raw materials from asteroids might not be too far off in the future. Again, this is not a job or purpose of the Space Patrol but there is no reason that private enterprise couldn't purchase the the same type of ship and adapt it for its own purpose.

What about Mars? Getting to the surface of Mars would not be a priority of the Space Patrol but I could easily envision the final shakedown cruise of a ship with either a nuclear-powered Pratt & Whitney TRITON engine or a 200 MW VASIMR engine going to the moons of Mars to practice rendezvousing with an asteroid since the creator of the VASIMR claims he could get to Mars in 39-45 days or maybe a slower 12 MW engine in four months.
 
Conclusion
Obviously I can't put forth all the details in one short blog. Tho I do have ideas as to how things should go if we move forward.

The danger is that we won't move forward. We are on the verge of entering a Dark Age for human space flight beyond LEO. NASA's budget is not only be frozen as a budget saving measure but short-sighted congressmen are already lopping off $298 million for local, non-federal pet projects (see Update 3 below $2 billion slashed). Expect this to happen again and again. Without a clear purpose for being in Space, we will, at best, continue the past 40 years of a flexible path to nowhere. The technology will continue to develop as it has for the past 40 years, but the will and funding to actually go beyond LEO will be lacking.

Yes, commercial interests will eventually push beyond LEO, but I'd like to see something happen before my 100th birthday! And there is still the threat of a rogue asteroid appearing out of the dark!

A Planetary Defense System against a rogue asteroid would give mankind a definite, recognizable, and defendable purpose for being in Space and, at the same time, it could breath new life into moving humanity beyond LEO in a continuous and maintainable manner in the near future.

---

UPDATE 1, Thursday, 03 Mar 2011: I need to clarify a point or two as a couple of people who have written me seem to have missed the point entirely and somehow construed this proposal to be pro-government, anti-private enterprise. Nothing could be further from the truth. Private enterprise in Space would have to expand to support the Space Patrol. The SP would not be a research and development organization!

Further, the existence of the Space Patrol would not hinder the development of private enterprise in Space such as space tourism or mining operations.

This proposal, if done the way I envision it, would actually speed up and enhance private enterprise in Space. For instance, let's say the nascent space tourism expands to include a cruise that circles the Moon ... something that would be quite spectacular. If the Space Patrol has a base in orbit (or on the Moon itself) and is available for rescue missions (a secondary mission to planetary defense), then it takes a huge burden off the firm to always have a second, standby ship crewed and ready to go. Which would mean actually having three ships as one would be in maintenance, one on standby, and one actually earning money. That alone could be so expensive as to kill the idea before it got started. But having a Space Patrol available for rescue missions would push the idea along. After all, a Patrol vessel capable of rendezvousing with an asteroid should have no problem tracking a cripple vessel and rendezvousing.

I hope that helps clear things up a bit.


UPDATE 2, Thursday, 30 Jun 2011: Scientists reveal asteroid hit list. Among the countries which face devastation to infrastructure are Canada, the US, China, Japan, and Sweden.

UPDATE 3, Thursday, 07 Jul 2011: CJS subcommittee slashes nearly $2 billion from NASA's budget.
 .