|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Plain talking on the Hill
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Plain talking on the Hill
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Plain talking on the Hill
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Plain talking on the Hill
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: |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Plain talking on the Hill
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Plain talking on the Hill
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Plain talking on the Hill
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Plain talking on the Hill
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Plain talking on the Hill
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No Code talking here = WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE | timothy liverance | Space Shuttle | 1 | June 25th 04 09:54 PM |
No Code talking here = WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE | timothy liverance | Space Station | 0 | June 25th 04 09:37 PM |