Become an NS/NSTI sponsor
...who we are
|
|
WHY NEW SPACE IS NOT NUCLEAR SPACE |
| by |
| Bruce Behrhorst |
Space advancement for the United States in this financially stressed epoch is
indeed a period of technological as well as financial adjustment.
Picking winning proposals to further a viable taxpayer funded and
self-sustaining commercial space program under unusual periods of
national financial instability will be difficult especially made more
difficult by opaque deficient macroeconomic and monetary policy by
government and it’s co-dependency with large corporate governance
policies.
When the new White House administration implemented their now
infamous space policy dubbed by the media as a "New Space" Plan for NASA.
It was received with confusion and consternation. Could in the near term
private businesses shoulder the entire U.S. space program effort?
President Obama’s announcement at the Kennedy Space Center in the spring
of 2010 came as a
surprise especially after rumors to the contrary had
circulated for months and that jobs at KSC and JSC would be safe in the interim as
programs-of-record would be unfunded such as the Constellation part of
the successful launch of Ares 1-X earlier that year. This of course would turn out false
since a massive job readjustment was underway. It left many in the space
community wondering if this was the harbinger of a waning space program
on life support.
What followed in space news and policy wonks circles
was a
political campaign to delineate new space -vs-
old space,
reformers -vs- the status quo in space. Of course we all know the
match-ups in the world of politics absent space science and engineering.
And no self-respecting member on either side of this divide would accede
to the other less their particular space project be left unfunded.
What both sides fail to grasp is that both public and private endeavors in
the aerospace industry worldwide have presently unprecedented low fund
and investment opportunities to draw from and in the foreseeable future
would be reality until financial trust and stability was once again exhibited.
One of the miscalculations the private (new) space reformer purists
failed to take into account was that direct access to the public largess would elicit a
political ‘battle royal’ who’s members are powerful, larger-than-life
political ‘power brokers’ that would not surrender easily.
One of the balanced bright points in resolving this intransigence
was when senatorial leaders began debating the issues (NASA Authorization Act of 2010) among
themselves like senators: Hutchinson, Shelby, Nelson, Mikulski
compromising on funding NASA components that made sense to keep and
revisit others programs. One major program adopted was the Heavy Launch Vehicle
(HLV) this remains a turnkey logistical and science as well marketable launch
vehicle that has capability since by most space market experts agree
there is real market capacity to fill since no space agency in the world has this capability
yet.
Commercial Satellite and Launch Forecasts (medium-to-heavy) is to
increase by 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016 [contingent on improved economic
health in the aerospace sector] (The Space foundation). Because building
a robust space program begins at the launch pad.
The House version H.R.5781 (NASA Authorization Act of 2010) also has some (findings) ground
rules that insured a continuation of a space program:
-NASA is and should remain a multimission agency with a balanced and
robust set of core missions in science, aeronautics, and human space
flight and exploration.
-NASA should begin to reinvest in sustained fashion in a long-term
space technology research and development activity. Such investments are
an important catalyst for innovation, and they represent the critically
important 'seed corn' on which NASA's ability to carry out challenging
and productive missions in the future will depend.
-It is in the national interest for the United States Government to
develop a government system to serve as an independent means whether
primary or backup - of crewed access to low-Earth orbit and beyond so
that it is not dependent on either non-United States or commercial
systems for its crewed access to space.
-In an environment of constrained budgets, responsible stewardship of
taxpayer-provided resources makes it imperative that NASA's exploration
program be carried out in a manner that builds on the investments made
to date in the Orion, Ares I, and heavy lift projects and other
activities of the exploration program in existence prior to fiscal year
2011 rather than discarding them. A restructured exploration program
should pursue the incremental development and demonstration of crewed
and heavy-lift transportation systems in a manner that ensures that
investments to provide assured access to low-Earth orbit also directly
support the expeditious development of the heavy lift launch vehicle
system, minimize the looming human space flight 'gaps' provide a very
high level of crew safety, and enable challenging missions beyond
low-Earth orbit in a timely manner.
-NASA's programs in astrophysics, heliophysics, planetary science, and
Earth science and climate research have greatly increased our
understanding of both our home planet and the rest of the universe, and
they have also provided numerous benefits to our society.
-It is in the national interest for the United States to have an export
control policy that protects the national security while also enabling
the United States aerospace industry to compete effectively in the
global marketplace and the United States to undertake cooperative
programs in science and human space flight in an effective manner.
-A strong, robust NASA program is in the national interest. Ensuring
that it can continue to pursue cutting-edge space and aeronautical
research and development activities and push back the frontier of space
exploration requires a sustained and adequate commitment in resources.
However, NASA's share of the Federal discretionary budgetary authority
has declined significantly relative to its post-Apollo historical
average share of 2.07 percent. It should be a national goal to restore
NASA's funding share to its post-Apollo historical average.
Internal NASA maladies evident in today’s NASA are the result in part of
'techno fiefdoms' in robotic space flight -vs- human spaceflight in the
bureaucratic organization. These competing interests need to be resolved
if any progress is to be achieved. Both organizational directives can be
made to complement each other rather than compete to accomplish
sustainable scientific objectives when costs need to be mitigated by
redundancy of services competing for market share to deliver services in
space.
No readjustment legislation is going to change an organization
that has for years has been under funded and expected to produce
substantial growth and sustainability. NASA’s budget has been reduced to
just over 1% of the federal budget for years and to grow a space program
requires and drastic reduction in military and some domestic
entitlements. Transparency in monetary policy is also necessary to
provide footing for predictable investments expenditures in space with
domestic and international partners. Competitive efficient ground launch
and in-space transportation services with life support services
production for both commercial and public research ventures need to
apply.
Unbridled and weak reasoned technical government funded stimulus into
only well positioned space industry lobby for space program development
will only lead to an anemic confused space program. One proposition
would be the creation of a NASA-NUCLEAR AGENCY a separate NASA agency with
its own directorates. Much like the idea of the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC), which later became absorbed by the much larger Department of
Energy (DOE) in reverse, allowing an AEC within NASA. Present NASA by
extension really only 'knee jerk' reflexes the current chemical political and
technical makeup of the space agency dominated by a limited lobby.
By reducing the public debt-to-GDP ratio allowing incentives for people
to work, grow saving accounts and invest we could with the technical
paradigm shift which space nuclear propulsion and power techniques
offer, grow a participatory space program. Maintaining itself relevant,
and participatory long into the future providing enriching space
science, functioning human space habitats and sustainable
resource/commecial space operations.
|
 |
|
|