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. 

Warning: Simplified spelling ahed ... They're not typos!

Why?
The question arises every so often, “Why do we hav a Space program?” Usually it is followed 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 folks, 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 about in the ISS and they ask, “Why don't we spend 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, asf. But the truth is that all the technologies likely would hav come to light sooner or later without NASA. And besides, they’v 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 cut to pieces tho not shielded it altogether from cuts. However, we’v never faced a budget crisis like we do now. The new “Age of Austerity” will soon be welling higher premiums for Granny’s Medicare. How do we justify to Granny that she must pay higher Medicare premiums while we spend billions so that an elite few can float about 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 stop 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 likely 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 straightforwardly begoes her. Only a personal purpose will drive Granny to back a major human space mission.

Lately I’v been pondering this. I was reading thru some of the usual Space-related websites when the answer flashed before my eyes like a meteor streaking across the night sky (Hint!). Over the last few years there has been a growing chatter about the need to develop a way to deflect asteroids away from Earth. In his book, Reopening the Space Frontier, John Hickman writes about establishing a lunar base as part of a worldwide shield against a rogue asteroid. To be truthful, this was a thread that I had waved away. After all, a space program robust enuff to get us back to the Moon likely could handle an asteroid errand. Wellll ... things changed last year when Obama killed the thought of going back 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 foreset 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 giv anyone much time to do anything but run.

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

The Russians are being a little more aggressiv. Russia is considering a plan to launch a spacecraft capable of moving the mikel asteroid Apophis in a bid to shield Earth from an impact. Luckily, 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 know that we need to start working on the technology now.

OK, so it does seem that there is a might-be of an asteroid hitting Earth and causing significant harm. Does this pass the Granny test? I think so. If you tell Granny that there are some big, honking asteroids buzzing about that could crash 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 show.

 

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 firstship 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 ... keeping 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' frain, "Do we need to spend billions on a space program when we have so many problems to solve on earth?"

Eathseen, I think the answer is yes, we do need to spend the gelt. But this time it is a little otherly. Everyone on the planet has a stake in this. But that doesn’t mean that every country needs to be involved. I’m thinking that a moot, gemoot, consortium, league, federation, or confederation (but not Alliance as that has a negativ 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 lessen the politics and focus on the project? I put forth that the Consortium or Gemoot form an organization and call it, for a lack of a better name, the Space Patrol. It will work in a like manner to the U.S. Coast Guard. The members of the Space Patrol, at least at first, 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 aufgaben 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 otherwise. And like our Navy, the members of the Patrol must be willing to thole long tours of duty except there will be no ports of call in Space ... at least not at first.

Further, the Patrol headquarters itself should be in Space. Mayhap 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 get rid of any debate among the members of the Consortium as to which country or countries will host the headquarters and burocracy of the Space Patrol. It will also lessen the tendency of an earthside Space Patrol burocracy that becomes more interested in its own comfort than the mission and it will help to keep the focus on Space.

The errand, that is mission, of the Space Patrol will be to find and turn away any asteroids that pose a threat to Earth. It can have secondary errands of clearing out debris in LEO and rescue missions.

So how does this help us in the "Age of Austerity"? I see the Consortium being set up by a treaty among its members and thus would require, in the US, strong bipartisan support to get it yeasaid 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"? Maybe, 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 set amount for X years that could be raised by agreement of the membership. 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 an ongoing errand to literally save the world. If China is on board, they could likely 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 backing 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. Maybe. 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 kenseek, that is research, for needful technology and they have other scientific research to do as well.

What about exploration?

Recall that I said before that any program robust enuff to go to the Moon would be robust enuff to handle an asteroid? Well, not only is the reverse true but even more so. A program robust enuff to hav a Space Patrol and the technology to rendezvous with an asteroid would need a Moonbase for raw materials. It would simply be too wasteful and costly to make and haul all the needed 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 enuff, the builders will find a way to get the raw materials on the Moon to lower their costs.

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

What about Mars? Getting to the surface of Mars would not be a priority of the Space Patrol but I could easily see 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.

Endsay
Obviously I can't put forth all the details in one short blog. Tho I do hav thoughts as to how things should go if we move forward.

The danger is that we won't go forward. We are on the edge of entering a Dark Time 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 errand for being in Space, we will, at best, keep on the same flexible path to nowhere that we'v been on for 40 years. The technology will keep coming out 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 World Asteroid Shield (WAS) against a rogue asteroid would give mankind a definit, recognizable, and defendable purpose for being in Space and, at the same time, it could breath new life into moving humanity beyond LEO in an ongoing and maintainable way in the near years ahead.
---

UPDATE 1, Thursday, 03 Mar 2011: I need to clarify a point or two as a few folks who have written me seem to have missed the point entirely and somehow twisted this foreset to be pro-government, anti-private enterprise. Nothing could be further from the truth. Private enterprise in Space would have to grow to upstay the Space Patrol. The SP would not be a kenseek and upbuild 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 foreset, if done the way I see it, would speed up and enhance private enterprise in Space. For byspel, let's say the budding space tourism grows to include a cruise that goes umbe the Moon ... something like that would be quite spectacular. If the Space Patrol has a base in orbit (or on the Moon itself) and is available for rescue errands (a secondary errand to the worldwide shield), 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 upkeep, one on standby, and one actually earning money. That alone could be so expensiv as to kill the thought before it got started. But having a Space Patrol available for rescue errands would push the thought along. After all, a Patrol vessel capable of rendezvousing with an asteroid should hav no problem tracking a crippled vessel and meeting up with it.

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.

UPDATE 4,  Thusday, 11 Apr 2013: "... a meteor streaked across the sky and blew up, injuring 1,100 people ..." USA Today, 15 Feb 2013. Hat tip to Glen Reynolds for the link in his writ: Combating the Asteroid Threat.
 .

An Open Letter to Charles Krauthammer, RE: Closing the New Frontier

Dear Mr. Krauthammer,

Please pardon this long piece, but after reading your editorial, Closing the New Frontier, many times, I decided that it demanded a rather detailed answer. While I agree with your endsay, that is conclusion, that Obama just shut the door to human exploration of Space beyond LEO (low earth orbit), I strongly disagree with how you got there. To be truthful, I expected better from you. The writ has a partisan taste to it owing to the inaccuracies contained therein.

Inaccuracies addressed

You begin by claiming that it is the first time that we've had no access to Space since John Glenn. This simply isn't right. When the Shuttle was grounded after the Columbia accident, we had to send people up via the Russians. True it was self-imposed but so is this one. We could keep flying the Shuttle until there is another system but we have chosen not to do so. We can debate as to whether that is a wise decision or not, but it is the current decision. 

You go on by claiming that there is no prospect of having another system in place for the the foreseeable future. Again this is inaccurate. As I type this, SpaceX is assembling the Falcon 9 at the Cape for a test launch tentatively set for 22 Mar 12 April 2010. SpaceX also has the Dragon capsule which will not only carry cargo but is capable of carrying seven humans which, I might add, is more than the Orion capsule is designed for. The truth is that there will soon be a private sector alternative to NASA's bloated and over-budgeted Ares I. Not only can the private sector do it, it is doing it and it will be online well before the Ares I would have been.

Which brings me to your next point. I'm surprised that, as a conservative, you think that a government agency such as NASA can launch humans into Space better and safer than can private enterprise. Too risky? Too experimental? We've known how to do it for 50 years! In the early years, NASA was willing to take risks and was on the cutting edge which is where it should be. That was what being an astronaut was all about. They were former test pilots who liv'd for the adrenaline rush ... but no longer. NASA has gone from a slim, trim agency that was focus'd on a goal to a bloated, risk averse burocracy with no vision. What little vision it did have, was taken by Obama.

As for your assertion that going to Mars is nonsense and just too far away, well ... that's nonsense! Bob Zubrin of the Mars Society has already laid out a workable plan called Mars Direct. It doesn't call for any radical new technology but it does call for an HLV (heavy lift vehicle). Since we don't have one (tho SpaceX has a design for Falcon 9 Heavy), Grant Bonin argues that not only can we use the MLVs (medium lift vehicle) that we currently have but it is also more economical to do so.

Whether we use HLVs or MLVs, the Mars Direct keeps to what I call the "good enuff" policy. "Better" is the enemy of "good enuff". Would it be better to have nuclear propulsion? Yea, you bet it would, but the chemical rockets are "good enuff" to get boots on the ground now. "Better" is what drug down and kill'd Constellation. Dusting off and modernizing the plans for Saturn and Apollo or using MLVs would have been "good enuff" to get boots on the Moon and thus would have ensured human exploration beyond LEO. But NASA chose to start over from scratch. The delays and costs killed any prospect of making it to the Moon in the next twenty years via NASA all because the burocracy wasn't interested in "good enuff".

UPDATE 15 Apr 13: Well, maybe I haven't been the lone wolf howling at the Moon after all, see: How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 “moon rocket” engine back to life / The story of young engineers who resurrected an engine nearly twice their age. — ArsTechnica, 14 Apr 13 here and New F-1B rocket engine upgrades Apollo-era design with 1.8M lbs of thrust — ArsTechnica, 14 Apr 13 here

But let's keep on with your objections. The long-term weightlessness is also addressed in the Mars Direct program with the use of a counterweight to induce a spin for artificial gravity. The problem also could be solved by reducing the trip time with a nuclear propulsion system which I'll come back to shortly.  

As for radiation, the whole thing about the radiation exposure is way out of line. News reports in the past have misrepresented the risk, stating that it might prevent human missions to Mars. However, it could be easily managed with current technology and is within tolerable limits. An astronaut in a six-month faring to Mars, the time required with conventional propulsion, would be exposed to about 0.3 sieverts, or 0.6 on a round-trip. Eighteen months on the surface (if it takes so long to get there, you might as well stay awhile!) would bring another 0.4 sieverts, for a total exposure of 1 sievert. Limits set by NASA vary with age and gender but range from 1 to 3 sieverts.

The danger lies in an unexpected intense solar flare but there are "good enuff" ways to add in the shielding needed. One way to add shielding for spacefarers aboard a Mars transport ship might be to surround them with the water they'd need for their trip or  the hydrogen for fuel. The hydrogen in water, scientists have learn'd, is one of the best absorbers of particle radiation. And, of course, the "better" way to lower the dose gotten would with shielding technology such as a simple magnetic plasma bubble that NASA has been testing for years. This alone would shield the astronauts from most radiation on their trip to Mars. Add a radiation compartment completely surrounded by water or hydrogen as mention above to stop the fast and slow solar neutrons then you would have a truly safe trip.

You can't plan for every contingency. But that is part of the risks! That is what being on the cutting edge is all about. If you designed the perfectly safe airplane, it'd never get off the ground. The astronauts who volunteer know the risks. Would you turn down a trip to Mars just because you couldn't get triple redundancy on every component? I wouldn't.

Mars isn't a bait and switch as you put forth. Mars was always the goal. The Moon was only supposed to be stepping-stone that many argued was unneeded in the first place. In that sense, Obama isn't trying to pull a fast one. However, I, like you, doubt his sincerity.

Sincerity

Human space flight has always been strongly opposed by two groups. There are those who think that the funds could be better spent on social programs despite the fact that Health and Human Services would eat NASA's budget in about a week with no lasting effect. Then there are those inside of NASA who think that human exploration is a waste of money ... more could be done with robots. What the second group fails to realize is that the first group will turn on them if human exploration is ever eliminated. I would guess that Obama definitely falls into the first group. According to Rand Simberg, "Obama’s first space policy position appeared on the “Education” section of his campaign website; it bizarrely put forth that Constellation be postponed for five years in order to fund new educational programs." He may also fall into the other group as well ... or at least his science advisors fall into the other group. The combination of both has led Obama to effectively end human exploration beyond LEO.

What could change my mine about Obama's sincerity? I hold a glimmer of hope, since Obama has come out in support of nuclear energy, that this will translate to reviving nuclear propulsion. Nuclear propulsion would cut down the travel time to Mars to about 60 days which would give the astronauts 90 days on Mars before they had to return to earth which now would take another 75 days, so the round trip, including the time on surface, would be around 225 days drastically cutting down the astronauts exposure to radiation and weightlessness. It would also allow a greater payload. Nuclear propulsion technology is nothing new, NASA has been testing this type of advanced technology for 50 years. It just needs some emphasis but I have yet to see money flowing into reconstructing a nuclear engine prototype similar to NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application), the Pratt and Whitney TRITON, or even a nuclear power source for a VASIMR engine.

NASA needs to back away a little or maybe a lot from a process called failure mode effects analysis (FMEA). FMEA was designed by NASA as a way to think through a system's reliabilty to pin down possible ways it could break; then tests are designed to validate the system under those conditions. This sounds good in concept but it has led to unneedingly lengthening the research and development stages in an effort to make sure that it worked correctly and perfectly the first time. It would be fetching to find out how many patents NASA has been awarded in the last twenty years versus the previous years to see if this process has had any effect the actual amount of research being done.

If Obama is serious about research in lieu of exploration, it would be better to return the X-project mode of research which focuses on technological objectives. If you want to design a nuclear engine then design and test a nuclear engine, don't design the whole spacecraft to go with it. It should say something when a former astronaut, Franklin Chang-Diaz, leaves NASA to pursue the VASIMR technology and now NASA is about to test it at the ISS (in 2013). Shouldn't it be the other way around with NASA passing the technology off to private enterprise?

Again, tho, I must emphasize that we have the technology to get to Mars now with "good enuff". Nuclear propulsion and VASIMR engines should be ready for the second or third generation of Earth-Mars transport vehicles.

Whither NASA?

Let's face it. In a few weeks, human explorers could have done all the research, and more, that was done by robots on Mars over the past several years. Once Apollo landed, scientists were salivating at the research possibilities but that was pulled out from under them. Has Obama just shut NASA out from sending humans to do scientific research on other planets?

Does retreating to do research end NASA's role in human exploration? Is it NASA's job to put a man on the Moon or to provide the research so that the National Geographic Society (NGS) could put a man on the Moon? The question that we should be asking Obama and Bolden to clarify is: Do you see human space exploration beyond LEO as part of the research effort by NASA?

I think you'll get different answers depending on whom you ask. Bolden will try to hedge a bit. NASA, as an institution, wants to be in the forefront of human exploration but does Obama want it there?

This is how I understand the situation.

1. Obama has killed Constellation. That in itself isn't a bad thing if the decision was reached because Constellation was bloated, over budget, and behind schedule. But Obama did the right thing for the wrong reason. He didn't do in an effort to get the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) back on track. He did it to end the VSE.

2. Obama turned transportation to LEO over to private enterprise. Again, the right thing for the wrong reason. Unless NASA intended to earn a profit from it in order to support other endeavors, it was time for NASA to get out of the way. Personally, I would have kept the Shuttle going until the Falcon/Dragon came online despite the cost but it wasn't my decision to make. However, I believe Obama did it in order to get NASA out of the rocket launching/design business all together.

3. Obama has order NASA to focus on earth sciences with emphasis on studying climate change. Is this really the purpose of the National AERONAUTICAL and SPACE Administration?

4. Obama has said that NASA is to do the research to allow private organizations like the NGS to go to the Moon. So what is the focus of this research? Will it design but not build a HLV? Will it test nuclear propulsion or just work on designs and turn them over to companies like SpaceX? Will there be a need for astronauts at NASA?

Endsay

I applaud turning transportation to LEO over to private enterprise. It's time for NASA to step aside.

I'm even ok with killing Constellation simply because NASA was wasting money and, more importantly, time reinventing the wheel. In the time frame since the announcement of the VSE by President Bush, we should have already been on the Moon again testing equipment for Mars.

I'm not ok with withdrawing NASA from human exploration. This is where NASA should be. It should be out there on the edge. Astronauts are explorers and test pilots who want to be on the edge. This is where we, as a nation should be.

Ironically, for better or worse, this could lead to further militarization of Space. The military has a need to be in Space. Without NASA leading the way, the military will forge ahead with its own programs.

For now, the U.S. still has the technological edge in Space but we're about to loose it thru inaction. We must market to the American public that we, as a nation, are explorers ... It is what we have done from the moment the first colony sprang up in the New World. IT IS PART OF OUR DNA! Folks from all over the world migrated to the U.S. to take part in pushing the frontier. WE TAKE RISKS! It's what we do. Exploration is HOPE! If we turn out back on Space, we're giving up hope ...

It also helps to guarantee our Liberty. Is it a coincidence that every time the U.S. turns it back on exploration and begins to examine its own navel that we loose more freedoms and liberties? Those who found that "civilization" with it ever encroaching rules, regulations, and burocracy was too confining could head for the frontier to escape the burocrats. It was a relief valve. Now where is that frontier; where is that relief valve? It's either the ocean or Space, neither of which are open to the common person.

We need to move common folks to Space. Astronauts should be out pushing the technology ... and yes, this means some will die when it fails but like I said, we take risks! There should be a rotation of technicians who take care of the inner workings of the ISS. We should not be sending astronauts to fix the toilet!

The ISS should serve as a base station for the astronauts to sleep, eat, and relax when they're not out testing a prototype nuclear-powered OTV (orbital transfer vehicle). There should also be tech there to work on the OTV when it returns to dock at the ISS.

Sigh, we could turn the ISS into a truly fremful, that is useful and effective, platform and push our knowledge and engineering while at the same time capturing the imagination of those still on the ground ... but sadly, we won't.

Mr. Krauthammer, you reached the right conclusion but for the wrong reasons.

Obama did indeed just slam the door shut.

04 Mar 10 - Added links that I had forgotten and mentioned the Falcon 9 Heavy.