WHAT WE NEED IS A VILLAIN
A Civil War General of the North once stated that good people do a great deal of harm in the world. He made the statement in regard to Confederate General Robert E. Lee who was greatly admired as a noble human being by nearly all involved in the Civil War. Because no one could hate Lee, the war dragged on for more years than was necessary, and many more died.
In a recent PBS special on the Jewish migration to Israel in 1948, it was stated that when the British Foreign Minister blockaded the coast and sent Jews back to Germany as punishment, the leaders of the Jewish Hagana organization knew the press coverage of such a villainous action would assure them of an Israeli State, and they were right.
Sometimes it's better to have an opponent who is an evil villain than a good person. When the Soviets launched Sputnik, the U.S. reaction took us to the Moon. When the Soviets became interested in Antarctica, the U.S. established four bases on the continent. If China were to put a space station in orbit NASA's budget would probably be doubled. If Dan Goldin were to stand up before Congress and state that the greater glory of socialism required that all civilians, capitalism, and private property, should be banned from Space, we would have a massive push for private space development almost immediately. What we need is not international cooperation and intergalactic love but a little fear and loathing.
IF
If NASA supports the future colonization of Space, then they should support the growth of the private free enterprise space transportation industry which will be necessary to build and support those colonies.
If on the other hand, NASA has given up on the idea that humanity will ever move into Space in large numbers, then there really is no need for further space exploration and only minimal need for space science. We won't need any more useless facts about Space. We can slowly reduce NASA by attrition and retirement until the space age can be brought to a permanent close. Without plans for space colonies, we don't need NASA.
THE X FILES
NASA, the Congress, and the President all state that they want cheaper space transportation, that America needs cheap space transportation, and yet;
X - The innovative low-cost rocket technology developed by Texas Rocket Company is suppressed by an Air Force "Secrecy Order". The question is how many other great advances in space technology are suppressed by "Secrecy Orders".
X - A report written in 1955, "Some considerations concerning the use of liquid nitrous oxide as an oxidant especially for Arctic smokeless JATO units", by H.K. Haussmann (AD 77 097) is still restricted to government personnel. There is a virtual ban on any information on nitrous oxide as an oxidizer. Only the amateur rocketry community is seeking to develop this oxidizer.
X - The report written in 1968, "Proposed minimum cost space launch vehicle system", by Arthur Schnitt and Col. F.W. Kniss (AD 395911) was public information but is now restricted to government personnel. This report laid out in a concise, systematic, and mathematical way, a method for determining the correct choices to be made in designing the lowest cost rocket. Rockets designed by this method are radically different from the current NASA designs.
All key pieces in low cost rocket development and all restricted from public access. There is a great deal of talk about promoting the development of low cost launch vehicles, but the actions of our government tell a different story. If you know of any other "X-files", contact Fox Moulder. If you know of any restricted reports about innovative rocket systems, contact; Mark Goll 210 651 6558 markgoll@wt.net
NASA NEWSPEAK
In his book "1984" George Orwell predicted that government agencies would bend the meaning of words to fit their needs. Below are a few examples of how NASA has distorted the language of "space" to appear to be favorable to free enterprise, along with what I have found them to mean.
ENTERPRISE - Used to describe the various NASA areas of operation, such as "Human Enterprise for Development of Space". This is just a new label for NASA bureaucracy as usual.
COMMERCIALIZATION - A little more insidious, this is NASA's word for NASA competing with industry as a supplier of products.
PRIVATIZATION - NASA takes a bunch of contractors, consolidates them into one sole source contract, and calls it privatization. That's not privatization.
COLONIZATION OF SPACE - Government housing on other planets.
CENTER FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - Even I fell for this one. This is not a place for business to sell products to people wanting to get into Space, it's a place for NASA to sell NASA products to industry.
COMPETITION - NASA always holds a competition for new rocket designs, claiming that the bids are competitive. Actually this is a winner take all arrangement for whoever has the biggest boondoggle to sell to NASA. Competition in the free enterprise marketplace typically involves competing for a larger share of the market, it's virtually impossible for a company to be totally shut out of a market, they will almost always seek niches where they can thrive.
OPENING THE SPACE FRONTIER - The ultimate NASA newspeak, keeping everyone else out of Space but NASA.
With the development of commercial space travel it is inevitable that commercial developers will some day set foot on the Moon. Since there are no land claims on the Moon, there is nothing to prevent someone from walking over to the Apollo 11 landing site and ERASING ALL THE HISTORIC FOOTPRINTS! Such an obliteration would be a tragic loss for future generations. The current "no land claims on the Moon" policy will not protect the historic sites of the first human explorations of the Moon. In order to prevent obliteration of the sites, I propose that the United States should lay claim to small areas around it's historic sites, as well as the unmanned landings of the Soviets. We should not depend on a treaty requiring other nations to monitor their citizens activities, such treaties may have no jurisdiction on the Moon. Of course the idea behind this is to get somebody to claim some piece of property out there in the universe. Once something has a deed on it, the rest of the universe is open to be claimed.
ONCE AGAIN, IT'S NOT THE COST!
I keep wondering why anyone in their right mind would say that we need to lower the cost of getting into Space. I suppose that Congress is looking to reduce the budget and NASA saying it's reducing costs makes NASA look good in the budget hearings. You might notice however that since NASA Administrator Dan Goldin has been repeating the mantra "faster, cheaper, better" NASA's budget has actually increased. But let's look at what lower costs really means to the participants of space;
NASA - Congress approves each individual program in the NASA budget. There isn't a big pile of money that NASA gets to spread around. If there is money left over in a program due to lower costs, it goes back to the treasury. Congress has specifically killed several NASA programs with the warning that any found funds transferred to the killed program would be deleted. What NASA does is dependent on the political motivations of Congress, not costs. Lower costs means less money for NASA.
Congress - Lower costs at NASA means less money to be spread around to the districts, and that's not what a Congressman wants.
Contractors - Since all NASA contracts are on a cost plus basis, smaller contracts mean lower profits for contractors.
Space enthusiasts - Lower costs continues the trend of a shrinking NASA budget, continuing the long slide to a complete NASA shutdown.
Space capitalists - Even if NASA were to transfer the Shuttles and The Space Station to private ownership, NASA funding would still be required to give the industry time to develop markets. As untrustworthy as NASA is, it is a conduit for space development funds.
It's not the cost of Space, but whether we get a space transportation industry out of what we spend. What we need to do is increase the profits. We need to raise the economy up to the level of Space, to increase the standard of living of every American to include the costs of Space.
Space Station, Mars, and Europa
A recent lecture to the San Antonio Astronomical Association by Dr. Mandel Humboldt highlighted NASA's long delayed and continuously updated plans for a manned mission to Mars. The current plan revives the Shuttle derived all cargo launch vehicle know as Shuttle C but with an engine reentry and recovery system. The plan uses payload packages predelivered to the Martian surface and on site propellant manufacture. It was a very interesting lecture.
Of course any manned mission to Mars will have to wait until the Space Station is finished. Dr. Humboldt noted that the International Space Station has become a credibility issue for NASA. Unfortunately that means that NASA is willing to gut the entire space science program to finish the station. Delays by the Russians has recently forced NASA to seek approval from Congress to transfer even more funds from space science to station construction.
If and when the station is completed, Mars will be sold to Congress as a follow on at the same budget level. In other words, Mars is now viewed by NASA as a "funding continuity vehicle". The question is, Is NASA interested in real science or just in maintaining a budget? Will Mars become a political goal like the Moon, resulting in a few foot prints on another dead world and another box of useless rocks?
We know that Mars is a dead planet, but recent reports indicate that Jupiter's moon Europa may have an ocean of water under a thin crust of ice and Saturn's moon Titan has an atmosphere similar to that of the early planet Earth. These two moons now offer a better chance of harboring life than Mars, a planet that has been verified by a dozen probes to be very dead. Are we going to throw away the chance to investigate the possibility of finding life on such moons as Europa or Titan just to maintain a program that supports a budget? Is NASA such a dinosaur that it can not change directions and focus it's science programs on anything else but Mars?
Hey Wait a Minute,
We've had space stations above the Earth for about twenty eight years now, with Mir in orbit for about eleven years. The Space Shuttles have also functioned as short term space stations on their orbital flights. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union we've been chummy with the Russians, and now have access to most of their space station science results. With all that time in orbit, and with all the experiments, why haven't they found one single product that needs to be manufactured in Space? Why aren't there dozens of space factories in orbit. Twenty eight years of research; no results; somebody ought to be answering some questions.
And now some space station history: First prototype flown, Gemini/MOL March 11, 1966. Salyut 1 was occupied June 7th 1971 by a three man crew who died during re- entry. Skylab was launched May 14th 1973. Mir has been in orbit since February 1986.