LIMITED BY DESIGN
Although NASA has for years claimed the role of opening the space frontier for humanity, the vast majority of what NASA does is by design a limitation as to how wide the door to Space is opened. Of course NASA would never actually consider openly stating that intends to limit humanity's access to Space, that would create an uproar of protest, but because NASA will always be limited by it's budget and because NASA always places itself in a leadership role, NASA becomes a limitation on humanity's future in Space, and the claims of opening the space frontier become lies.
In the 1970's NASA sold the Space Shuttle program to the American people as "America's Railroad to Space". It was easy to believe that the organization that went to the Moon could provide all Americans with cheap reliable and safe access to Space. Congress of course only paid for four shuttles, and so America had a limited system of access to Space. Reductions in the planned flight rate of the shuttles has even further limited the capacity of our National Space Transportation System so that now only NASA payloads use the shuttle system. The high capital investment and operating costs of the Space Shuttles further limits the growth of the system keeping private operators out.
In the 1980's NASA turned it's focus on building an International Space Station. The current design has virtually no capability for future expansion. The ISS has very limited accommodations which are filled by NASA payload requirements. There is no excess space to be "sold to the highest bidder". By raising technical barriers and operational concerns NASA has limited space station use to just a few friends, and has placed itself firmly in the driver's seat.
In my travels to Launch sites and test facilities around the U.S., I have found that all rocket engine test facilities and nonmilitary launch sites in the U.S. are under NASA's direction. Since there are no major private launch facilities in the world, access to even the point on Earth where access to Space is to be gained is limited.
Actually the whole concept of NASA as the world's space agency is basically flawed. By concentrating all space expertise in one organization the intent was to gain efficiency and focus. However what the "one best organization" idea has done is limit the spread of space flight expertise, denying all other organizations the knowledge and experience of operating systems in Space.
What we need are many space launch vehicles.
What we need are many space launch organizations.
What we need are many satellites of different design.
What we need are space experts spread throughout the industry and government agencies.
What we need are lots and lots of people in Space, and we won't get that if we limit ourselves to one organization named NASA. The more you dig into the situation and see how bad things are, the more you become convinced that the end of NASA is both desirable and overdue.
BAIT & SWITCH
Long ago in Czarist Russia the Cheka or secret police were very efficient at searching out revolutionaries, well, before the last Czar that is. A favorite tactic was to manufacturer a conspiracy to overthrow the Czar which would attract disgruntled citizens and government employees, and traitorous members of the aristocracy. Once all the traitorous elements in the population were exposed it was a simple matter to round them up and chop their heads off. This also had the effect of making everyone else a lot less interested in joining conspiracies!
NASA now seems to be using the same tactic to maintain it's monopoly in space transportation. During the sixties, seventies, and eighties NASA didn't have this problem, they had a legal monopoly in space flight. In 1986, after Challenger, things changed, President Reagan privatized the unmanned satellite launch vehicles and suddenly NASA had competition. In short order the major vehicle manufacturers proposed an advanced Atlas, a doubled sized Titan, and a second version of the Saturn 1. Getting the major contractors back in line was fairly simple, NASA started the Advanced Launch Vehicle program, the first of a long series of big budget studies of which the X-33 is the latest. With the prospect of guaranteed profits, the majors dropped their big plans, lined up behind the NASA projects, and learned not to compete with NASA.
The new crop of "space entrepreneurs" is being a little more difficult to handle. They are not part of the NASA contractor system, and they look to private enterprise for funding and for a market. So, NASA is refining it's technique. While Dan Goldin announces publicly and endlessly that NASA wants to encourage the new space companies, NASA has been taking behind the scenes steps to drive them out of the U.S. market. For an organization that says that it is getting out of the space transportation business, NASA has taken the following steps to compete with a free market.
X-33 a new vehicle for NASA which has already been designated as the Space Shuttle Replacement, to guarantee to industry that NASA will be there to compete with them in the future.
Space Shuttle upgrades, including, Advanced Solid Rocket Booster, Liquid Fly back Booster, Main engine reentry module, and others to guarantee that NASA will compete with industry now.
Dan Goldin's disparaging remarks about the technology and financing of the space entrepreneur's new vehicles, a thinly disguised but very successful tactic to scare investors away.
In a Space News report (6-21-99), NASA's chief engineer, Daniel Mulville recommended "that NASA declare in 2000 its intent to buy launch services from commercial RLV companies." A wonderful statement to be sure. However, the powers that be at NASA quickly stepped in to block any commitment to a free market space transportation system. Mulville soon retracted his statement saying instead that NASA would be selecting a shuttle replacement in 2005 and that a NASA upgraded Shuttle would be part of the competition. The message to industry in all this is clear, play NASA's game or loose out.
And now, Dan Tam NASA chief of "Commercialization" has made a request to Congress to revoke the Reagan ban on flying commercial payloads on the Space Shuttles, allowing NASA to directly compete with private enterprise. And it gets worse, to encourage NASA managers to compete Tam has also requested that NASA be allowed to keep the revenues generated. Dan Tam, assistant to the NASA administrator for commercialization, acknowledged that commercial interests would be important for a return to the Moon. He encouraged companies, even those that have mistrusted the space agency, to keep the lines of communication open. "It's okay to hate us," he said, "but it's not okay not to talk to us." isn't that kind of a threat?
Having first encouraged the space entrepreneurs to come out into the open, NASA now intends to start swinging the axe.
NASA cannot compete in a free market, as a government agency it can only compete with the free market.
HEY MR. BILLIONAIRE!!!!
Want to leave a legacy for mankind? Want to change the course of human civilization? Thinking about flying into space for the thrill? Well, you could do something which would have a much greater and long lasting effect than a space tourism stunt. With all your money and all your lawyers, the one greatest thing that you could do would be to impact a small probe on the Moon, and then set your lawyers to the task of claiming a small area around the impact point as your PRIVATE PROPERTY. No other event would have such a long lasting benefit to humanity, or be more difficult to achieve (a little JFK paraphrase there). The cost of the probe would be small, but the legal battles would take years. By making the first successful private property claim in Space, you would be opening the entire universe to human occupation.
THE APOLLO SYNDROME
The Apollo program to put a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth was NASA's greatest success. After the first lunar landing was achieved plans were immediately developed to utilize the Apollo hardware to build a lunar outpost, a space station, and to send humans to Mars. NASA was sure that their great achievement would be rewarded with a commitment to open the space frontier. But it was not to be, the public lost interest, the budgets were cut, in NASA's eyes the organization was punished for being a success. It was a shock that NASA has yet to recover from, and is a fundamental part of the way NASA reacts to the prospects of success.
Today NASA has developed a talent for avoiding success. We have a space station that does nothing, except requiring periodic Shuttle flights for maintenance. Even when the station becomes operational, don't look for any great breakthroughs, after all, the Russians have had stations in space for twenty years and the only use they have found for space stations is to sell the hardware to NASA. Of course the NASA Space Shuttle was doomed to economic mediocrity from the start. It is the most expensive launch vehicle ever built, yet NASA still seems very proud of it despite it's lack of success.
After the landing on the Moon, the next big step in Space for NASA is the search for life in outer space, yet even here NASA is studiously avoiding success. NASA has sent a dozen probes to Mars, each one verifying that the planet is airless, dry, and dead. Europa, a moon of Jupiter, in a few flyby glimpses has indicated great prospects as a life bearing planet with a vast ocean under it's ice cap. NASA, ever vigilant to avoid success, naturally has renewed it's efforts to send more probes to the dead planet Mars, and has delayed a proposed mission to Europa beyond 2010. In the future we can be certain to see NASA become even better at the game of how not to succeed.
EVERYBODY LOVES A PARADE.
It's also the reason everybody loves NASA. They both commemorate past glorious events, they both make a lot of noise, they both have celebrities waving to the crowds, they both have really strange looking big things moving around, and of course they both accomplish nothing. People who accomplish great things usually do so quietly in a factory or laboratory somewhere, and we usually only see the results after there have been a lot of marketing studies and engineering development. Great accomplishments are not that thrilling.
MARS NEEDS FAGS!
Ok, I apologies. But the fact is that the first people to settle any new frontier are usually some group who are outcasts from society, Puritans, Mormons, whatever. With our politically correct open to everyone American society everybody is too comfortable, we haven't given anybody a good reason to flee in fear of their very lives. However, from what I hear on the news, I'm certain that other countries are making great progress in this department. If we can develop a commercial space transportation system, someday just such a group of social outcasts will take that first step towards colonizing Space.
SHORT SIGHTEDNESS
is a condition in which the eye can only focus on objects close to the viewer. The word also describes a condition in which a person or organization cannot see beyond their immediate interests. A lot of what is wrong with our space program can be attributed to short sightedness.
NASA is focused on the protection of their budget, usually by NASA's continued monopoly as America's State Airline for Space, which means one space transportation system and one space station. NASA cannot see beyond it's self preservation to the benefits that a commercial space transportation industry and a large space industry base could provide to humanity and even benefit NASA's own exploration program.
NASA also sees space as being for science only, with space industry as a pollution source of the scientific environment to be avoided at all costs. NASA fails to see that without industrial applications there is no need for space science research.
Government leaders see space as being for government operations only. Space projects that support national prestige or serve Defense needs are ok, but citizens have no place in space as far as our government is concerned. I suspect that there is even a fear of the changes in political power that a new frontier will bring.
The general public is also not very far sighted. There is a very colonial view of Space as only being a source of products and services to Planet Earth. Any people who will someday live in Space will be viewed as servants of the Earth bound population. This is definitely going to cause problems someday.
Finally there seems to be a view that Earth as the only place where humans can live. I hope that someday Earth will be viewed as the birthplace of the human race, but with Space as humanity's rightful home.