Sustainability: a National Space Board?

One of the central questions for the President's Moon to Mars
commission is that of sustainability - how does a new exploration
initiative sustain momentum year after year, as changes occur in
congress and the executive branch?

I am preparing a proposal on this, and would like to hear your
thoughts on the concept of forming a "National Space Board", similar
to the "National Science Board" that governs the work of the National
Science Foundation - see http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/overview/about.htm

The purpose of such a board would be regular review of all the
proposals related to the exploration initiative (and perhaps science
and astronomy initiatives as well), ranking them in priority order. On
a regular basis, NASA and other agencies involved in space projects
would provide budget and time estimates for selected items including
the highest priority ones, and the board would approve a high-level
project list (hundred-million to billion-dollar scale things) and
schedule for the next few years ahead.

The board would also regularly review ongoing and past projects, to
assess accuracy of estimation from the different agencies, and feed
into future priority assignments.

Board members would be appointed by the president, approved by the
Senate, similar to the National Science Board members, and intended to
be representative of all the nation's space interests.

The role of Congress would be to establish the budgets available and
to set down purpose and structure for the board, NASA, and any other
involved agencies and departments. The absolute key is avoiding
year-to-year prioritization or micro-management by Congress or
political appointees in the executive branch.

Would this work? Is it a feasible change? Has it been proposed (in
some other form perhaps) before?

Thank you for asking for our input on something like this.

I am generally not a fan of forming committees to solve problems. I'd rather
have an elected official make a decision, get congress to approve and fund it,
and make it happen. In other words, I'd have congress voting on a specific
plan to go back to the moon and on to mars.

However, you are right that these ideas and plans have the potential to
disappear due to changes in the white house and congress.

Witness the debacle of the super conducting super collider. They built a
beautiful lab in Texas, bought lots of land, starting digging, then had the
funding wiped out. A huge waste of money and no return for the government's
investment.

I think any proposal you come up with needs to have very specific goals set
forth for the board. Rather than just review the plans for the initiative, it
needs to help set some specific goals and timetables for those plans. In other
words, the board needs to be able to tell NASA that by x date they should be
ready to begin to build y program to accomplish z objective in the overall plan
to go back to the moon and on to mars. That would help congress understand why
NASA needs certain funds for certain projects in certain years.

Those are my thoughts. I hope you find them useful.

In article ,
(Arthur Smith) wrote:

One of the central questions for the President's Moon to Mars
commission is that of sustainability - how does a new exploration
initiative sustain momentum year after year, as changes occur in
congress and the executive branch?

I am preparing a proposal on this, and would like to hear your
thoughts on the concept of forming a "National Space Board", similar
to the "National Science Board" that governs the work of the National
Science Foundation - see http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/overview/about.htm

The purpose of such a board would be regular review of all the
proposals related to the exploration initiative (and perhaps science
and astronomy initiatives as well), ranking them in priority order. On
a regular basis, NASA and other agencies involved in space projects
would provide budget and time estimates for selected items including
the highest priority ones, and the board would approve a high-level
project list (hundred-million to billion-dollar scale things) and
schedule for the next few years ahead.

The board would also regularly review ongoing and past projects, to
assess accuracy of estimation from the different agencies, and feed
into future priority assignments.

Board members would be appointed by the president, approved by the
Senate, similar to the National Science Board members, and intended to
be representative of all the nation's space interests.

The role of Congress would be to establish the budgets available and
to set down purpose and structure for the board, NASA, and any other
involved agencies and departments. The absolute key is avoiding
year-to-year prioritization or micro-management by Congress or
political appointees in the executive branch.

Would this work? Is it a feasible change? Has it been proposed (in
some other form perhaps) before?

Good idea, but it puts the cart before the horse.

*First* you must establish and sustain a national consensus about the
importance and about the direction of US government policies in Space.
*Then* there will be the backing in Congress to fund them, perhaps with
a NSB, or perhaps through a rework of the President's Space Council.

At present, we lack that consensus. No clear political majority places
Space anywhere near the top of its political spending priorities. Also,
there is great dissension, among those who do place it highly, over
differences between manned space and robotic science missions. Even more
intense is the dispute between advocates of military exploitation of
Space and those who desire to believe the "heavens" are a prisitne place
that are, and shoud remain, above today's and tomorrow's battles about
whether the industrial world will continue to build industrial networks
with relative freedom of action, on many levels of action.

Until such disputes are settled, any "Board" will find itself paddling
in vacuum, and free fall, with nothing to push against. Only obvious and
profitable achievements will draw positive attention to Space, and only
a definite and decisive demonstration on either side of any of the
directional disputes will cause the needed directions to firm up in
people's minds.

Thus, I would note we are still at the beginning stages of firming up
such sustained support, and much work needs to be done to get market
demonstratios off the ground, as well as the military systems demos that
are planned for later this decade.

Regards,

Tom Billings

--
Oregon L-5 Society

http://www.oregonl5.org/

Hi Tom!

Thomas Billings wrote in message ...
[...]
*First* you must establish and sustain a national consensus about the
importance and about the direction of US government policies in Space.
*Then* there will be the backing in Congress to fund them, perhaps with
a NSB, or perhaps through a rework of the President's Space Council.

Well, do we need a national consensus on the importance and direction
of "science" in general? We seem to manage ok without that for
government science programs, why not for government space programs?

Part of the assumption in the Bush space plan seems to be we already
have a consensus to spend roughly $15 billion/year on space, but we
want something more substantive to come out of it than just jobs
programs for engineers and their managers...

I.e. we have a consensus on funding, and I think everybody could agree
that there are many more things we would like to do in space, beyond
what we do now. The purpose of an independent board such as I'm
suggesting would be to sift through all the suggestions for "things we
would like to do" and pick priorities for the next set period of time
(5 years at a time, say). There would have to be back and forth with
NASA and any other space-involved agencies on timelines and budget
estimates, and general review of progress; but it would be a way to
formulate a "national consensus" without having to involve 100 million
voters in the detailed decision-making, which seems to be the current
assumption.

[...] Even more
intense is the dispute between advocates of military exploitation of
Space and those who desire to believe the "heavens" are a prisitne place

If the US defense department has space needs, it should fund them
itself (as it already does). This is intended as a strictly civilian
oversight body; projects that could benefit national security could
well be a factor in prioritization, but should not be the overriding
concern. If that's what you were referring to.

[...] Only obvious and
profitable achievements will draw positive attention to Space, and only
a definite and decisive demonstration on either side of any of the
directional disputes will cause the needed directions to firm up in
people's minds.

Huh? The disputes you seem to have in mind are quasi-religious - "Mac
vs. PC" type things. There's no way any "decisive demonstration" is
going to decide anything there, and it's pointless to wait on such a
thing, when we clearly have important new space projects we should be
working on now.

What I mean by a "project" here is not some enormous Apollo-style
affair; rather to partition things to a smaller scale, independently
justifiable, even if other things don't pan out. Examples would be
lunar robotic survey missions, proof of lunar or martian water
resources, demonstration of a working space fission reactor, etc.
Projects requiring human spaceflight (for example, advanced lunar
prospecting, Hubble servicing, etc.) need be no larger in scale than
any of these other projects.

Also, some "projects" may not involve spending government money, but
just altering the regulatory environment to enable private ventures
(for example, adopting Alan Wasser's Space Settlement Initiative, or
generally renegotiating the Outer Space Treaty to explicitly encourage
private space property ownership).

Arthur

packle (ARNOLDEVNS) wrote in message ...
Witness the debacle of the super conducting super collider. They built a
beautiful lab in Texas, bought lots of land, starting digging, then had the
funding wiped out. A huge waste of money and no return for the government's
investment.

Sounds like the X-33, doesn't it. And half a dozen other NASA
projects.

I think any proposal you come up with needs to have very specific goals set
forth for the board. Rather than just review the plans for the initiative, it
needs to help set some specific goals and timetables for those plans. In other
words, the board needs to be able to tell NASA that by x date they should be
ready to begin to build y program to accomplish z objective in the overall plan
to go back to the moon and on to mars. That would help congress understand why
NASA needs certain funds for certain projects in certain years.

That's a very close approximation to what I had so far in more
detailed terms, for the board's purpose and methodology. So I think
you have the right idea, definitely!

In article ,
(Arthur Smith) wrote:

Hi Tom!


Hi there!

Thomas Billings wrote in message
...
[...]
*First* you must establish and sustain a national consensus about the
importance and about the direction of US government policies in Space.
*Then* there will be the backing in Congress to fund them, perhaps with
a NSB, or perhaps through a rework of the President's Space Council.

Well, do we need a national consensus on the importance and direction
of "science" in general?

Yes, and we've had that since August, 1945. Big Bangs get attention, and
the US political community don't want to be left out on the next big
advance.

We seem to manage ok without that for
government science programs, why not for government space programs?

That's the point, we have had it for 59 years for "Science". We don't
yet have it for "Spaceflight".

Part of the assumption in the Bush space plan seems to be we already
have a consensus to spend roughly $15 billion/year on space, but we
want something more substantive to come out of it than just jobs
programs for engineers and their managers...

I.e. we have a consensus on funding, and I think everybody could agree
that there are many more things we would like to do in space, beyond
what we do now.

That's the key point. Most posters and lurkers on sci.space.policy would
agree with this statement, as I do. Unfortunately, there is as yet
little sign that the political majority anywhere agrees with us.

The purpose of an independent board such as I'm
suggesting would be to sift through all the suggestions for "things we
would like to do" and pick priorities for the next set period of time
(5 years at a time, say). There would have to be back and forth with
NASA and any other space-involved agencies on timelines and budget
estimates, and general review of progress; but it would be a way to
formulate a "national consensus" without having to involve 100 million
voters in the detailed decision-making, which seems to be the current
assumption.

That would repeat an old mistake, perhaps not as disasterously, but.....
There is a book I'm recommending on this general topic of national
endeavors, which describes the history of a past similar endeavor. That
was the turning of the British Isles to a comittment to long-range naval
commerce and warfare as their primary means of interacting with the
world. The book is called " The Safeguard of the Sea" by N.A.M. Rodgers.

In it, he describes the follies of English and Scottish monarchs in not
bothering to sustain a national naval consensus till 1560, when
Elizabeth I changed that. Then he notes in his last chapters the danger
that the Stuart monarchy fell into by attempting to short circuit the
need to sustain a national consensus on how the Royal navy was to be
used, and thus what type of Navy ships were to be built. This political
mistake cost Charles I his throne and his life, ultimately. I doubt that
would happen here, but such attempts to forgoe the real effort needed to
build consensus on spaceflight has already cost us the last 30 years of
unfocused and ill-funded and restricted access spaceflight we have had.

Note that, as in England, simple political activity is *not* enough. The
dolorous history of NSS as a NASA cheerleader over the last 20 or so
years is example enough there. Multiple and continuing examples must be
available of national benefit from Spaceflight to get support for such a
policy.

[...] Even more
intense is the dispute between advocates of military exploitation of
Space and those who desire to believe the "heavens" are a prisitne place

If the US defense department has space needs, it should fund them
itself (as it already does).

No. The US Congress funds both civil and military government programs.
They are quite jealous of their perquisites to assign spending. Causing
them to bend their desires for pork to the needs of a service program
requires a consensus that will both reward them for allowing a permenant
"Board" to decide where most money goes, and punish them if they resist
this. Today it is obvious that the military has space goals far beyond
the present political consensus to sustain the military spaceflight
needed to accomplish those goals.

This is intended as a strictly civilian
oversight body; projects that could benefit national security could
well be a factor in prioritization, but should not be the overriding
concern. If that's what you were referring to.

Two separate groups for civil and military might be doable. Their
technology matrices will be similar and often interpenetrating.

[...] Only obvious and
profitable achievements will draw positive attention to Space, and only
a definite and decisive demonstration on either side of any of the
directional disputes will cause the needed directions to firm up in
people's minds.

Huh? The disputes you seem to have in mind are quasi-religious - "Mac
vs. PC" type things. There's no way any "decisive demonstration" is
going to decide anything there, and it's pointless to wait on such a
thing, when we clearly have important new space projects we should be
working on now.

The present disputants are quasi-religious for the most part. The
political community is not, and they assign support.
My point is that such demonstrations, of profit and protection and power
projection, are what attract political majorities in any state. That's
what's needed as a first priority before there are any new resources to
allocate.

What I mean by a "project" here is not some enormous Apollo-style
affair; rather to partition things to a smaller scale, independently
justifiable, even if other things don't pan out. Examples would be
lunar robotic survey missions, proof of lunar or martian water
resources, demonstration of a working space fission reactor, etc.
Projects requiring human spaceflight (for example, advanced lunar
prospecting, Hubble servicing, etc.) need be no larger in scale than
any of these other projects.

Also, some "projects" may not involve spending government money, but
just altering the regulatory environment to enable private ventures
(for example, adopting Alan Wasser's Space Settlement Initiative, or
generally renegotiating the Outer Space Treaty to explicitly encourage
private space property ownership).

Arthur

Again all of these are good ideas. Getting political capital behind them
requires the belief that such capital will be replenished out of a
political consensus in support of those who pay positve attention to
Space, and replenished *before* the next election. We will have to do
the demonstrations with the present levels of influence we have. As an
example, H.R. 3752 will help a bit on the comercial side, if its Senate
equivalent, S. 1260, passes as well. The flights of Spaceship One from
Mojave will help as well when they become more frequent. Other examples
will come to mind, and had better. We need *many* of them to build the
needed consensus.

Regards,

Tom Billings

--
Oregon L-5 Society

http://www.oregonl5.org/

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:09:54 GMT, Thomas Billings
wrote:

In article ,
(Arthur Smith) wrote:

.... Would this work? Is it a feasible change? Has it been proposed (in
some other form perhaps) before?

Good idea, but it puts the cart before the horse.


I think it is an excellent idea.


*First* you must establish and sustain a national consensus about the
importance and about the direction of US government policies in Space.
*Then* there will be the backing in Congress to fund them, perhaps with
a NSB, or perhaps through a rework of the President's Space Council.

At present, we lack that consensus ....

You're right, but waiting for the consensus to emerge is before
establishing a board meant to weather things like a lack of consenus
is a catch 22.

I think we have to do SOMETHING to ensure that things like Moon/Mars
survives a change in adminsitrations. Right now, I am convinced that
Kerry would kill Moon/Mars at the first opportunity, and I doubt he
would keep Constellation. There is no guaruntee such a board could
prevent it, but does anybody have a better idea? Maybe having a board
recomend specific goals, instead of an individual president, will
decrease the risk that said president's uccessor could axe it out of
spite.


..... there is great dissension, among those who do place it highly ....
Until such disputes are settled, any "Board" will find itself paddling
in vacuum, and free fall, with nothing to push against ....

But again, waiting for those disputes to settle themselves before
forming the board means that the board will probably never be formed.

The Synthesis Group proposed a National Program Office that would have
overseen the program, which would have involved, NASA, the DoT, and
the DoE. Perhaps our board could be sold as forum for having those
disputes and setting priorities. Whether it is any better at doing
that than the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was at ending
the squabbling between those states over the sea and airports there --
it just gave it a new place -- remains to be seen, but again, it
stands a better chance of settling things than thrashing them out on
the 'net.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 12 Mar 2004 14:43:51 -0800, (Arthur Smith) wrote:

Would this work? ....

I don't know. But right now, there is no such mechanism to insure
things like Moon/Mars survive political reversals of fortune. It
should at least be given a shot.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

(Arthur Smith) writes:
I am preparing a proposal on this, and would like to hear your
thoughts on the concept of forming a "National Space Board", similar
to the "National Science Board" that governs the work of the National
Science Foundation - see http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/overview/about.htm

If it does not have power, then it is just another committee.
Possibly this can help but I am not sure. Notice that there is
already quite a lot of review of US space policy, and as far as I know
that review is thorough.

And if the board does have power, it frankly scares me. Most
especially if it has power even "under a lack of consensus". Yikes!
I like democracy, thank you very much. As much as I want to see
long-term plans followed, I do not want to see long-term plans that
cannot be cancelled even by an act of congress plus a command from the
president.

So, let's find a way to sustain progress *without* needing a body of
absolute power floating around.


The absolute key is avoiding year-to-year prioritization or
micro-management by Congress or political appointees in the
executive branch.

My understanding is that the issue is not micromanagement, but fund
cutting. No board can help with that; new Congresses simply needs to
keep funding at the levels old Congresses have decided.

A way around this might be that it requires a separate act to *cancel*
a space allocation for multiple years. Right now, space allocation
gets bundled in with the rest of the budget and thus it's easy to
cross out a little here and there. (In fact, I just experienced this
exact phenomenon personally!)

Such an approach does not need to be specific to space. There can be
a generic mechanism for multiple-year allocations from the budget, and
it can be disallowed to change these allocations in the normal budget
bills.


Just a thought. I don't know whether it would really work out, or
whether it is even feasible to get there from our (US) current
approach to the national budget.


-Lex

In article ,
Arthur Smith wrote:
One of the central questions for the President's Moon to Mars
commission is that of sustainability - how does a new exploration
initiative sustain momentum year after year, as changes occur in
congress and the executive branch?

But given that Bush's "initiative" is so blatantly rear-loaded,
there isn't anything to sustain.

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *