Plain talking on the Hill

http://www.house.gov/science/press/108/108-124.htm

Committee on Science
SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, CHAIRMAN
Ralph M. Hall, Texas, Ranking Democrat Press Contacts:
Heidi Mohlman Tringe
Jeff Donald
(202) 225-4275

WITNESSES SUGGEST CHANGE OF COURSE FOR NASA HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
PROGRAMS

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 16, 2003 - Expert witnesses at a House
Science Committee hearing today said that NASA's current human space
flight program "is not moving us toward any compelling objective, and
we should make a transition out of it as soon as possible."

All five witnesses at the hearing on "The Future of Human Space
Flight" agreed with that statement, when asked by Science Committee
Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY). The witnesses were Dr. Michael
Griffin, President and Chief Operating Officer of In-Q-Tel and a
former NASA official; Dr. Wesley Huntress, Director of the Carnegie
Institution's Geophysical Laboratory and a former NASA official; Dr.
Matthew Koss, Assistant Professor of Physics, College of the Holy
Cross; Dr. Alex Roland, professor of history, Duke University; and
Dr. Bruce Murray, Professor Emeritus of Planetary Science and
Geology at the California Institute of Technology and a former
director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

In response to further questioning from Boehlert, all five witnesses
also agreed that "the primary reason for human exploration is the
impulse to explore, rather than any more utilitarian goal - although
there can be collateral benefits; that we can take on ambitious goals
without massive increases in the NASA budget; and that we should
avoid sacrificing other NASA programs to achieve our human space
flight goals." In addition, Griffin, Huntress and Murray agreed that,
"the long-term goal of the human space flight program should be
getting to Mars, and preferably starting colonies or outposts in
space."

Boehlert asked the questions to summarize the testimony given at the
three-hour hearing.

In opening the hearing, Boehlert said, "Today's hearing is just the
beginning of our efforts to build a national consensus" on this
issue. He added, "We need to be thoughtful and deliberate and
coldly analytical in putting together a vision for the future of
human space flight. It has to be a long-term vision; we're not about
to embark on any crash program - the technical challenges alone are
enough to prevent that." Boehlert's complete opening statement is
attached.

Ranking Democrat Ralph Hall (D-TX) added, "The human exploration
of space is a fundamental expectation of the American people --
indeed of people all over the world. However, we remain unwilling
as a nation to commit to a clear set of goals for the human space
flight program and to the resources required over the long haul
to achieve them. We can and should do better. Rep. Nick Lampson
on our Committee has reintroduced the 'Space Exploration Act of
2003' (H.R. 3057), which would establish a phased set of goals
for America's human space flight program, whereby the achievement
of each goal helps provide the capabilities needed to attain
successive goals. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of Mr. Lampson's
bill; its adoption would go a long way towards providing a
rational framework for our human space exploration investment
decisions."

Witnesses called for a renewed sense of purpose and a more
focused vision for NASA's programs. Huntress testified that the
Space Station and Space Shuttle do not merit the risks that they
entail. He said, "[i]f space explorers are to risk their lives
it should be for extraordinarily challenging reasons - such as
exploration of the Moon, Mars, and asteroids, and for construction
and servicing space telescopes - not for making 90 minute trips
around the Earth. The whole point of leaving home is to go
somewhere, not to endlessly circle the block."

Similarly, Murray said the current NASA programs have us "bogged
down" in low-Earth orbit.

"It is hard to explain the human space flight mission to the
public unless we talk about destinations," Subcommittee on Space
and Aeronautics Ranking Democrat Bart Gordon (D-TN) said. "The
reality is that technology programs that are not tied to specific
- and agreed-upon - mission goals become very vulnerable to budget
cuts or even cancellation over time."

Koss, a scientist who has had several experiments on Shuttle
missions, stated that the science currently being conducted in
space is not worth the risk. "The vast majority of physical science
experiments conducted in orbit simply do not require on-board human
intervention or assistance," said Koss. Koss argued that unless a
researcher could prove that the experiment needed human interaction,
it should not put human lives at risk.

Griffin said a far more ambitious NASA program could be run for
$20 billion a year -- about $5 billion more than NASA is currently
receiving. Huntress agreed with that figure, and Roland and Murray
said a worthwhile program could probably be run with no additional
funds at all. In response to a question posed by Subcommittee
Chair Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Griffin said he would be willing to
fund NASA at that level, even if such an increase forced cuts in
university research programs. Huntress said he would not be willing
to make such a tradeoff. All the witnesses emphasized that an
Apollo-style crash program was neither necessary nor wise.

Roland went the furthest of the witnesses in his suggestions for
the current NASA program. "The United States may have a long-term
future in human space flight," he said, but "[f]or the near term…
human space flight should be suspended, or at least drastically
curtailed. If the shuttle flies at all, it should fly unmanned,
or at worst with a minimal crew. The space station should be
mothballed or converted to a space platform, a research facility
to be visited periodically for refueling, maintenance, and changing
experiments." Roland added, "The problem, of course, is the shuttle…
While it is a technological marvel, it is also the world's most
expensive, least robust, and most deadly launch vehicle."

Murray agreed that such a hiatus might be necessary to put human
space flight on a path for future success. He said, "[T]he
political leadership of this country must also insist on NASA
developing and presenting a range of realistic alternatives to
its current Shuttle/ Space Station plans that can enable a
credible national commitment to a paced Mars human flight
program. These alternatives necessarily should include multi-year
suspensions of U.S. human flight as NASA elected to do in 1975 -
1981, when NASA suspended U.S. human flight entirely after the
Apollo-Soyuz mission until the first shuttle test flight in order
to create the budget wedge enabling the Shuttle to be developed.
Only by considering such painful alternatives can the relentless
decline into mediocrity and irrelevance of U.S. human space flight
be reversed within realistic budget considerations."

###

108-124

flight goals." In addition, Griffin, Huntress and Murray agreed that,
"the long-term goal of the human space flight program should be
getting to Mars

Let me just point to fundamental omission in this whole discussion. They
never gave a reason why theyd want to "get to Mars".
If its just for the heck of it, we could as well just stop here.

-kert

Kaido Kert wrote:

Let me just point to fundamental omission in this whole discussion. They
never gave a reason why theyd want to "get to Mars".
If its just for the heck of it, we could as well just stop here.

Yes. The space program emphasized supposed utility over exploration
because the latter wasn't selling. Why do they expect it will sell now?

Paul

"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...
flight goals." In addition, Griffin, Huntress and Murray agreed that,
"the long-term goal of the human space flight program should be
getting to Mars

Let me just point to fundamental omission in this whole discussion. They
never gave a reason why theyd want to "get to Mars".
If its just for the heck of it, we could as well just stop here.

To 'expand our boundaries' would be my intuitive answer. We know we can do
it, but that's not the same as actually doing it.

But you're right. I'm much more interested in getting private companies into
space then moving beyond Earth orbit. Once private enterprise gets involved,
things will move along alot quicker and a lot more people will get the
chance to go into space. An analogy would be airlines, which quickly turned
flying into something extraordinary into an everyday event which is
extremely safe. I envision something similar with space travel.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:34:49 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
Dietz" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Kaido Kert wrote:

Let me just point to fundamental omission in this whole discussion. They
never gave a reason why theyd want to "get to Mars".
If its just for the heck of it, we could as well just stop here.

Yes. The space program emphasized supposed utility over exploration
because the latter wasn't selling. Why do they expect it will sell now?

Those hearings were pointless. They dragged in the usual suspects,
and got the usual testimony. It's just a kabuki dance.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in

"Kaido Kert" wrote

flight goals." In addition, Griffin, Huntress and Murray agreed that,
"the long-term goal of the human space flight program should be
getting to Mars

Let me just point to fundamental omission in this whole discussion.
They never gave a reason why theyd want to "get to Mars".

Didn't they give a reason in "the primary reason for human exploration
is the impulse to explore, rather than any more utilitarian goal -
although there can be collateral benefits..." ?

But you're right. I'm much more interested in getting private
companies into space then moving beyond Earth orbit. Once private
enterprise gets involved, things will move along alot quicker and
a lot more people will get the chance to go into space.

We all wish and believe that would happen, but,

An analogy would be airlines, which quickly turned flying into
something extraordinary into an everyday event which is
extremely safe. I envision something similar with space travel.

The private companies developed air travel as a means to an end
their customers wanted to achieve -- which was only to a small
and decreasing extent to experience air travel. Mostly people
wanted to get from one place to another to do other stuff, be
it to conduct business, lie on the beach, kill their neighbors or
whatever. People were willing to pay the private companies
accordingly to accomplish those ends, which is why the private
companies got into the biz.

The thing manned spaceflight(*)lacks at the moment is the "end"
part, aka "Why should we pay money to do this?".

Going back to the top, if exploration is the end, you need to
find a way to convince individual people or their duly elected
representatives to pony up the money to achieve that end.

(*)"Spaceflight" is about all you can call it. "Space travel" is,
at present, a misnomer for what we're doing with manned spacecraft,
which IMO is part of the problem. Ditto "Space exploration." People
aren't travelling to anyplace worth going to for the money, nor
exploring much space. Nor, as of today, are we on a track that might
enable them to do so.

"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
om...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in

"Kaido Kert" wrote

flight goals." In addition, Griffin, Huntress and Murray agreed
that,
"the long-term goal of the human space flight program should be
getting to Mars

Let me just point to fundamental omission in this whole discussion.
They never gave a reason why theyd want to "get to Mars".

Didn't they give a reason in "the primary reason for human exploration
is the impulse to explore, rather than any more utilitarian goal -
although there can be collateral benefits..." ?

But you're right. I'm much more interested in getting private
companies into space then moving beyond Earth orbit. Once private
enterprise gets involved, things will move along alot quicker and
a lot more people will get the chance to go into space.

We all wish and believe that would happen, but,

An analogy would be airlines, which quickly turned flying into
something extraordinary into an everyday event which is
extremely safe. I envision something similar with space travel.

The private companies developed air travel as a means to an end
their customers wanted to achieve -- which was only to a small
and decreasing extent to experience air travel. Mostly people
wanted to get from one place to another to do other stuff, be
it to conduct business, lie on the beach, kill their neighbors or
whatever. People were willing to pay the private companies
accordingly to accomplish those ends, which is why the private
companies got into the biz.

If space tourism became a reality the same type of development would still
happen: spaceships would become commonplace and cheaper and better and
safer. Access to space will become cheap because of economies of scale,
which can't be obtained with the current launch rates.


The thing manned spaceflight(*)lacks at the moment is the "end"
part, aka "Why should we pay money to do this?".

Going back to the top, if exploration is the end, you need to
find a way to convince individual people or their duly elected
representatives to pony up the money to achieve that end.


Although space exploration will push up the timetable for a manned Mars
landing, in the end we will still end up with the same 'done that, been
there' Apollo-syndrome once we get there. There simply ISN'T a sound reason
to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on putting a few men and women on
Mars and keeping them alive and occupied. Only commercial enterprises can
shell out the money and justify the capital expenditure in the long run.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:
But you're right. I'm much more interested in getting private companies into
space then moving beyond Earth orbit. Once private enterprise gets involved,
things will move along alot quicker and a lot more people will get the
chance to go into space.

And do what when they get there? Out here in the real world, few
people travel without a purpose in mind.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

A hiatus without starting the next project could be a mistake. It could
turn into a permanent hiatus. The last hiatus turned into a bit of a
disaster, because we ended up with something worse than what we had before.
We replaced Apollo with the Shuttle. Mars won't happen in my lifetime, so I
don't care about Mars. It's not much of a goal. Right now, the only person
who can fix the US space program is George Bush and I don't think he cares.
He could state a goal and then get the American people fired up and
interested in the goal. Other people can state goals, but they can't get
the attention of the American people.

Many people expect private enterprise to come running to the rescue, but I
don't think it will. I think that NASA would have to establish a market
first, before private companies would be interested.

I have stated my plan several times in this newsgroup, so people are bored
with reading it. Send robots to the moon to build a hotel out of local
resources. By the time they get done, we'll have a hotel, mining, and
manufacturing. Send some of the robots in the same spaceships you'll send
humans in. That way your spaceships will be tested before you send humans.
The hotel can be used for more than joy-riding tourists. It can be used for
astronauts, scientists, and businessmen.

Allen Thomson wrote:

Didn't they give a reason in "the primary reason for human exploration
is the impulse to explore, rather than any more utilitarian goal -
although there can be collateral benefits..." ?

Why is that a justification? There's a human impulse to ****; does that
mean the government should run whorehouses?

Paul