[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

starship-design: The Outstretched Empty Hand of American Space Efforts




http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=893
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
       The Outstretched Empty Hand of American Space Efforts       
                                                                   
                                                                   
 Dennis Wingo                                                      
 Tuesday, October 28, 2003                                         
                                                                   
                                                                   
 I had a dream the other night. I was in China, riding on a train. 
 The train pulled into a station and I got off to take a break. In 
 the lobby was a magazine advertising a major U.S. University and  
 its academic programs. Across the page from the advertisement was 
 a picture of a painting. The impressionistic painting showed a    
 statue in a snowstorm of an American with an out stretched empty  
 hand. The title of the painting was "American Efforts in Space,   
 the Outstretched Empty Hand."                                     
                                                                   
                                                                   
 I awoke from this dream and realized that the outstretched empty  
 hand is a perfect metaphor for American human space efforts. How  
 many times have we stretched out our hand with human spaceflight  
 to open the space frontier and come up empty handed? From the     
 fall of Apollo to the debris field of Texas and the quandary over 
 the fate of ISS and its predecessors we cannot seem to get our    
 act together or develop a vision for our space efforts.           
                                                                   
                                                                   
 It is not as if visions (which in the biblical definition means a 
 sense of purpose) do not exist. Indeed from the images and work   
 of Von Braun, Bonestell, and Disney to the Gene Roddenberry world 
 of Star Trek we have had visions of what the future could be like 
 in space. All of these visions have the common thread that PEOPLE 
 are involved, not just robots. The difficulty is that there is a  
 serious disconnect between the visionaries view of the future and 
 the implementation plan of our national space policy.             
                                                                   
                                                                   
 A lot of people, both inside and outside of NASA realize the      
 above. However, there seems to be confusion about how to rectify  
 the situation. In the coming days Senator John McCain will hold   
 hearings about the future of NASA where he in his honest way will 
 seek to find answers to the question of "what is the future of    
 our national space program". Mr. O'Keefe will give testimony      
 about what he (and by proxy the Bush administration) sees what    
 the future will be. Mr. Rick Tumlinson and Dr. Robert Zubrin will 
 do the same and knowing Rick and Bob the themes will be private   
 enterprise and Mars respectively. However, all of the testimony   
 as well as Mr. McCain's question will miss what the real point,   
 which is why we have a national space program. What must follow   
 why if we are to not result in the outstretched empty hand.       
                                                                   
                                                                   
 For the American populace the why is almost self evident and has  
 been illustrated and promoted by the pioneers (including          
 television) above. For space to be worth the effort and national  
 treasure the answer to why must be "to benefit mankind here on    
 the earth". Star Trek makes the argument in an almost backhanded  
 manner. How many times did Kirk or Picard speak about how space   
 eliminated poverty, disease, and provided opportunity for a       
 richer life for all humans? This was also a fundamental premise   
 of Disney, Von Braun, Ley, and the other pioneers of the factual  
 (as opposed to our love of warp drives) development of the space  
 frontier by humans. The difference today, and the Apollo and ISS  
 programs are illustrative of this, is that the development of the 
 space frontier has been separated from the scientific interest in 
 space.                                                            
                                                                   
                                                                   
 Up through the 1960's the inherent assumption about our future in 
 space was that this development would be of dramatic and          
 permanent benefit to the earth and that people, lots of people    
 would be involved, both on earth and in space. Indeed, president  
 Kennedy himself cast the Apollo program as being "an important    
 first step in the conquest of space". However, the Apollo program 
 is where the shift began from a real space program to what we     
 have today. Dr. Von Braun argued passionately yet unsuccessfully  
 for the Earth Rendezvous method of going to the Moon that         
 presumed that we would build a modular space station in Earth     
 orbit. This station would be used to assemble the Lunar vehicle   
 that would then fly from Earth orbit to the Moon. Von Braun       
 argued that by utilizing the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous method we     
 would be left without any meaningful infrastructure in space to   
 carry on after the initial landings were made. This decision is   
 what turned the Apollo program into flags and footprints and      
 resulted in the outstretched empty hand in the first space age.   
                                                                   
                                                                   
 In an effort to salvage Apollo Von Braun and NASA, with           
 considerable congressional support developed the concept of the   
 Apollo Applications program. I urge Senator McCain and all who    
 are interested to read the document "The Space Program in the     
 Post Apollo Period", A Report of the President's Science Advisory 
 Committee, prepared by the Joint Space Panels and published by    
 the White House in February 1967. It is instructive to read their 
 recommendations and see how far we have diverged from them, back  
 then as well as today. Here are their five recommendations that   
 have as a fundamental precept the why of space exploration.       
                                                                   
                                                                   
 1. A limited but important extension of Apollo to exploit our     
 anticipated capability to explore the Moon. 2. A strongly         
 upgraded program of early unmanned exploration of the nearby      
 planets on a scale of time and effort consistent with the         
 requirements for planning future manned expeditions. 3. A program 
 of technology development and qualification of man for long       
 duration space flight in anticipation of manned planetary         
 exploration. 4. The vigorous exploitation (by all appropriate     
 agencies of Government) of space applications for national        
 security and the social and economic well-being of the Nation. 5. 
 The exploitation of our capability to carry out complex technical 
 operations in near Earth orbit (and the Moon) for the advance of  
 science, particularly astronomy.                                  
                                                                   
                                                                   
 The why for space exploration is best laid out in 4. above: "for  
 national security and the social and economic well-being of the   
 Nation". This is what has been lost to the space program and it   
 began and ends with science being the all consuming reason for    
 having a space program that now the core value at NASA.           
                                                                   
                                                                   
 By the early 1970's and the lack of follow through by congress    
 and the president on the recommendations of the President's       
 Science Advisory Committee NASA shifted gears to justify their    
 budget and programs in terms of scientific return. If you read    
 the post Apollo records of conferences and papers the change in   
 emphasis is clear. This is also when the academic peer review     
 process was formalized for the unmanned space program that put    
 scientific value as the primary criterion for missions and made   
 the project scientist the principal investigator for unmanned     
 missions. This led to a shift to the new and uninvestigated       
 phenomena in space and a shift from the 10% of the budget for     
 unmanned missions in 1967 to the one third to one half share      
 today. This is the reason that the Lunar Observer lost out to the 
 Mars Observer mission. This is also the reason that, as a         
 response, many private space advocacy groups came up with the     
 Lunar Prospector mission. The name of this mission was            
 specifically chosen in order to emphasize that prospecting for    
 minerals is important to space development.                       
                                                                   
                                                                   
 First this is NOT an attack on science, only on relative          
 priorities assigned to science at NASA and throughout the federal 
 government's non defense space activities. Indeed space science   
 has contributed to the social well-being of the nation, if for no 
 other reason, the beautiful pictures that the Hubble telescope    
 has produced. Space certainly contributes to the national         
 security of the nation as has been demonstrated by the success of 
 the GPS program and a plethora of other national defense space    
 programs. Even the economic and social well-being has been        
 enhanced by communications satellites, Direct TV, XM Radio, and   
 other commercial services. However, as the favorite buzz words of 
 the defense department illustrate, we have not had a              
 transformation, or a revolution, in our lives as a result of the  
 above recommendations and indeed very few of them have been truly 
 addressed. It is quite evident at NASA in that we have an Office  
 of Space Science as a core enterprise but no Office for Space     
 Development.                                                      
                                                                   
                                                                   
 Today in the defense department we hear a lot about the need for  
 transformational capabilities and for revolutionary change. The   
 same is true in NASA and the rest of the U.S. government's        
 approach to space. Again the International Space Station (ISS) is 
 the poster child for both the problem and the opportunity. ISS,   
 originally, Freedom was conceived as a permanent facility in      
 space in many ways conforming with the Joint Panel's              
 recommendations above. The space station as Reagan envisioned was 
 originally conceived as a waypoint in space, where a large hanger 
 would be used for assembling Lunar and Mars bound spacecraft. It  
 would be used for technology development and research into long   
 term manned spaceflight. It would also have been used for         
 microgravity research. This is what president Reagan introduced   
 to the nation in 1984. What we have now is a pale shadow of that  
 great idea.                                                       
                                                                   
                                                                   
 The station was fought over in congress with the majority         
 democrats taking money from the program at many crucial points.   
 NASA, in response continually morphed the rational for the        
 station toward a science oriented station in order to build       
 congressional support. Finally, after all of the boiling down it  
 became president Clinton's way of getting around Jesse Helm's     
 foreign relation's committee's blocking of money going to the     
 Russian government and for some microgravity and long duration    
 humans in space research. Even most of this was stripped away     
 when Dan Goldin, facing huge overruns and a skeptical congress,   
 took all of the money from microgravity research, leaving almost  
 nothing left of the long duration human research. When the        
 microgravity research community protested, many leaders were      
 forced into leaving. Tragically, recent reports from competent    
 scientific authorities question the methodology of NASA's long    
 duration human spaceflight research effort.                       
                                                                   
                                                                   
 This all brings us to today and the question of what and or why.  
 We need to re-establish the development of space as a core value  
 of national space policy. Science is wonderful and goes hand in   
 hand with development but without a development as a core value   
 of national space policy Senator McCain's committee and hearings  
 will all go the way of all of the other tree killing efforts, the 
 outstretched empty hand.                                          
                                                                   
                                                                   
 Today you hear a lot of congress people and others in space       
 advocacy such as Dr. Zubrin making the claim that ISS is just the 
 U.S. going around in circles and is irrelevant to what the real   
 goal should be which is Mars. Nothing could be farther from the   
 truth. ISS is the jumping off point to Mars and the Moon and the  
 rest of the solar system. ISS is a triumph of manned spaceflight  
 in its construction and operation. Where it has a failing grade   
 is in utilization. This can change. The simple fact is that we    
 have a space station and we can turn it into that waypoint to the 
 solar system that Von Braun, Disney, and the early visionaries    
 meant it to be. From spacecraft construction to astronomy to      
 human spaceflight testing ISS can be all that we dreamed it could 
 be way back when. The how then becomes the question.              
                                                                   
                                                                   
 Rick Tumlinson and the Space Frontier Foundation has pushed for   
 years for the private development of space. The problem with this 
 approach is that private enterprise, and more importantly space   
 finance, when it comes to space is very skeptical. This is where  
 Senator McCain and his committee and the Congress can help to     
 enable the future. Here are four points that will make ISS into a 
 waypoint and space in general into an economic engine rather than 
 a playground for a couple of rich guys and government employees.  
    1.     Enact a version of Dana Rohrabacher's "Zero G Zero Tax" 
      legislation.                                                 
    2.     Make ISS and American commercial space stations an ITAR 
      free zone.                                                   
    3.     Pass other legislation that enables the rapid licensing 
      of suborbital and orbital tourists vehicles.                 
    4.     Pass a Public/Private partnership law similar to the    
      ESA rules to lower the risk and provide incentives to        
      entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Walt Anderson   
      and others yet to come.                                      
                                                                   
                                                                   
 The Zero G Zero Tax (ZGZT) legislation would be similar to the    
 current embargo on taxes on Internet commerce that did so much to 
 power the economic miracle of the 1990's. It was a good idea when 
 originally introduced and still is. When scored by the joint      
 taxation committee a few years ago its ten year impact on the     
 treasury was estimated at $1 Billion dollars. Since commercial    
 space covered by the act had zero revenue at the time that means  
 that over five billion dollars in commercial space activity was   
 estimated to be generated. The bill died because offsets were     
 required but it should be obvious that with zero revenue going to 
 five billion revenue there should be benefits to the nation       
 beyond the mere corporate taxes involved.                         
                                                                   
                                                                   
 Making ISS an ITAR free zone would greatly simplify the process   
 of getting payloads to an international space station inhabited   
 by several different nations, all of which are covered by the     
 current ITAR rules. This is a huge thing and far more important   
 than can be simply described here.                                
                                                                   
                                                                   
 The "permission to fly" campaign started by the Space Frontier    
 Foundation should be taken up by the government. In our post 9/11 
 world it is extremely difficult to get permission to launch       
 people into space from U.S. soil for joyrides. Make this easier.  
 Also, put in indemnification that covers these companies when     
 people inevitably die during these adventures. Treat it the same  
 way as people who climb mount Everest.                            
                                                                   
                                                                   
 ESA today has a great rule that provides matching funding from    
 ESA member states through ESA to the country where the economic   
 activity occurs. That is if I start a commercial space company    
 and invest $20M dollars in this activity ESA, through their       
 advisory committees and national governments will match that      
 amount dollar for dollar. This is an incredible way to help       
 reduce risk for commercial space efforts.                         
                                                                   
                                                                   
 This all comes back to the question of why? For science? For      
 glory and national prestige? For the well-being of the nation?    
 Well all of the above actually. Today we face some incredible     
 problems in terms of our energy future. We simply cannot          
 completely move to the use of fuel cells and the hydrogen economy 
 without space. From the Platinum Group Metals (PGM) that make up  
 the cells to the technology for efficient hydrogen production,    
 space plays a central role. There are not enough PGM's on the     
 earth to enable the hydrogen economy and the technology           
 development in power systems and maybe even solar power           
 satellites can help to deliver the power that we need for our     
 future. Fusion, that ultimate power source for efficient space    
 propulsion can be used for efficient power production on the      
 earth.                                                            
                                                                   
                                                                   
 The larger reason for why is that space is as important today as  
 the national railroad, the Panama Canal, and the interstate       
 highway system has been over the last two centuries. The U.S. and 
 our national space policy has the ability to transcend the        
 problems that face the world today for our energy future and      
 resources to help bring the rest of the world to the same level   
 of affluence that environmentalists say is impossible. Recently   
 the World Wildlife Federation proclaimed that we would need two   
 extra Earth's to raise China and the rest of the world to an      
 American level of affluence. Well as Dr. John Lewis has pointed   
 out in his book "Mining the Sky", there are hundreds of thousands 
 of worlds just waiting to be developed as well as the major       
 planets, and dozens of Moons. I would recommend that Mr. McCain   
 ask Dr. Lewis to testify as well as Dr. Bill Boynton, also from   
 the University of Arizona who can tell you how much water really  
 exists on Mars.                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
 We have a space station. Lets use it. We have the Delta IV and    
 the Atlas V. Lets use them to send heavy payloads to ISS. We even 
 have a Space Shuttle, an aging yet remarkable system. I am going  
 to go against all of my advocate friends and advocate a second    
 generation Shuttle to replace the current three remaining         
 shuttles that can meet the criterion laid down by NASA for the    
 Assured Access to Station program. A clean sheet design taking    
 advantage of over twenty years of operational experience would be 
 a much better and cost effective solution that would fulfill all  
 of the Orbital Space Plane requirements as well as the Assured    
 access program. Implement all of the upgrades and operational     
 changes recommended by various committees over the years and you  
 could build a very nice STS II that would be able to be semi-mass 
 produced and later mated to a flyback booster, resulting in a     
 fully reusable system. Boeing, in the form of the old Rockwell    
 Downey, the Shuttle's original builder, has done some good work   
 in this area.                                                     
                                                                   
                                                                   
 We have a tremendous future in space if we just shake loose the   
 shackles of the last thirty years of post Apollo hand wringing.   
 If we do not do this successfully we will certainly end up as the 
 Portugal of the 22nd century and enable the construction of the   
 statue memorializing the outstretched empty hand.