RealCurrents

Congressman John Culberson, from Bill Archer’s (and George H.W. Bush’s) old District 7 in Houston, is getting a bit of a backlash for daring to say something critical of NASA. Here’s the comments page from yesterday’s Houston Chronicle article, Culberson weighing legislation for NASA overhaul.

Now Culberson has gotten a reputation as one of the most tech-savvy Congressmen, which seems well-deserved. In May, he did a live video, using his cell phone and the Qik service, of the Mars Phoenix landing from JPL. Culberson’s enthusiasm for space, science and discovery is obvious there. He’s also very active on the fast-growing Twitter social network (@johnculberson), to the point that last week he became embroiled in a flap with Democrat congressional leaders over proposed rule changes that would severely restrict congressional internet video and blog posts.

Asking a question like “What’s wrong with NASA?” is so complex that a long answer is probably of little practical usefulness. I will say that it was a little disturbing how quickly folks who obviously knew far less about NASA than Culberson, including some politicians, turned on him as if he’d blasphemed or something. It’s also frustrating how many immediately viewed this as some sort of attack on the personal integrity of NASA employees.

As someone who once worked, long ago, both for NASA and a contractor, these sorts of arguments seem pretty much pointless. Let me just repeat what I wrote at the Chronicle page:

This has nothing to do with whether NASA has good employees or not. Of course there are many very motivated and dedicated folks at NASA and among the contractors. The real question is whether they’re being used effectively.

Rep. Culberson is right in certain respects. NASA has made great strides in many areas, but two areas, manned spaceflight and propulsion technology, are greatly lagging. We need a concerted effort in advanced propulsion because this drives everything else, and we desperately need strong leadership for a sustained manned spaceflight program.

As far as NASA taking credit for a “growing commercial space industry”, that’s ridiculous. Maybe the agency is finally seeing the light about commercial space, but it’s visionary entrepreneurs and private investors who have long been the driving force.

As to how we should invest funds to best create a vigorous manned space program, I wrote about the basic technical strategy here on my blog AeroGo. Congressmen, responsible for determining NASA’s budget and priorities, at least need to understand the root problem behind our frustrating lack of progress in manned spaceflight, which I noted in this discussion of SpaceShipOne designer Burt Rutan’s criticisms of NASA:

Because its R&D isn’t properly divided between technology development and operations, NASA remains prone to starving technology development whenever funds are tight (i.e. nearly always), which is much of the root problem. I suspect this is a lot of what is upsetting to Rutan about the program, “that you are not going to learn anything new here that is useful for you to go on to the other moons.”

The reality of NASA budgeting over the last 30 years or more has been that of operational manned space projects - Shuttle and ISS - crowding out most everything else, which leads to a very risk-averse R&D environment where breakthroughs are unlikely to occur

NASA will never be a perfectly efficient organization, but it still could accomplish a lot more if its budgeting were realigned to reflect the strategy needed to make steady progress. Manned flight operations cannot be allowed to crowd out space technology research, especially propulsion, anymore than they can be allowed to displace space probes, space science, or aeronautics research.

Because manned spaceflight is so expensive, however, the reality is that it will end up crowding out the others unless Congress imposes budgetary guidelines to protect these other areas that provide so much technological return on investment. Rep. Culberson is right in calling for an overhaul of NASA, but the budgeting process is key. Even without multi-year appropriations, a lot can be accomplished just by making sure NASA isn’t eating its own seed corn, particularly in the area of space technology R&D.

I was reading Jessica Mah’s post on how a lot of her high-school and college-age friends are really scared about global warming. Here in the U.S., it’s often reported that folks in other countries are more concerned than the average American, but little attention has been given to how the issue is impacting younger Americans.

It occurred to me that they need a little perspective on this. I grew up in the 1970s, and for those of us Americans who went through this period when the U.S. was in a severe technophobic angst, and there were constant pronouncements about all the terrible things that were going to happen, I suppose we’re just not so quick to be convinced the world is coming to an end every time scientists start preaching doom and gloom.

This was a very long list of crises that 1960s-70s experts insisted were soon to befall us, most of which I’ve probably (thankfully) forgotten, but which included such calamities as pollution, endangered species, population, overcrowded skies, the San Andreas and yes, even a looming ice age. I guess being terrified of nuclear armageddon just wasn’t enough anymore. The funny thing was, very few of these scientists were talking about an energy crisis.

Of course, even the “energy crisis” didn’t last long, once investors started pouring hundreds of billions into oil, which was $35 when I got out of high school but less than $10 when I got out of college. Jessica titled her post “Scared of Global Warming? Bring in the entrepreneurs!” and so yes, I think she’s right that entrepreneurs and the free market are a lot of the answer to global warming.

In general, though, I think we ought to stop and notice something. It sure seems to me that scientists can get into a negative funk about stuff, and end up focussing too much on the problems rather than the solutions. In fact, I can’t help wondering if it’s sort of the same dynamic as with investment newsletters - negativity and fear apparently sell a lot more newsletters, and a crisis may, sadly, be the only thing that will finally garner a research project any funding.

Now, this is certainly not all the scientists’ fault, nor is the business world off the hook. Just look at the American car industry, one of the most pitiful examples of research budgeting in modern history. Perhaps GM, Ford and Chrysler may be excused for being caught unprepared on fuel economy in the early 70s, since they were already struggling with new emissions restrictions. On the other hand, here we are again thirty years later and, sadly, it seems that only the recent combination of high oil prices, a dropping dollar, and concerns over carbon emissions was finally enough to get them serious again about improving fuel economy.

Amidst all the prognostications, it’s still not clear how global warming is going to play out. Besides the many questions of specific effects in specific places, there’s at least three basic questions involved. First is the question of how fast temperatures will go up. Second, how much will they rise long-term (or is it a runaway increase with no end in sight)? Third, if temperatures can be stabilized, will (can?) they then head back down?

We hear virtually nothing of potentially beneficial effects, but clearly there’s going to be some winners among the many losers from effects of global warming. Interestingly, so far the Russians seem to be the only ones thinking ahead about any positive outcomes from it. As Jessica suggests, entrepreneurs ought to be also. Again, though, we must keep a proper perspective - a long-term perspective.

While there’s a lot we don’t know, we can say that at least for practical purposes, whatever we can do will take place over decades. Realistically, it’s far too late to do anything about changes that may take place within the next decade or so. In other words, whatever research and changes - technological or political - that are to be made must be done consistently over a decades-long time frame.

This is, for example, why I strongly disagree with the basic Kyoto (Treaty) framework. Already China is producing as much carbon emissions as the U.S., and will likely continue to increase. Kyoto might be effective in reducing the emissions of Western industrialized nations, but given these reductions and the continued growth of China, India and other large industrializing countries, within a few years this extremely costly plan will prove ineffective in reducing the bulk of emissions.

We’ve heard from the scientists on global warming, but have yet to hear from the engineers, who are going to be the folks who have to make reductions in carbon emissions actually happen. We need to think about cost/benefit ratios. We also need to think about sustaining research investments over decades, which as the history of NASA indicates, is awfully difficult to do when you start out with crash-program type overbudgeting.

I think it’s a good bet that a lot of these new technologies are going to come from both big American businesses (such as Boeing with its new 787) and American entrepreneurs. This realization may not play well overseas, but any approach such as Kyoto that hobbles the American economy is going to be counterproductive.

Like it or not, the U.S. is still a (if not the) major innovation engine in the world. Companies in Silicon Valley (1, 2, 3) and elsewhere in the U.S. are working on hundreds of different technologies, everything from emission controls to cheap solar to electric cars to wind power and so on. Here in Texas, it’s become common to see the giant parts of wind turbines rolling down the highway on their way west, where hundreds are being put up.

We must remember that innovation, not political decrees, is the only way to solve the problems from global warming, and while we’re at it, let’s not forget to also think about taking advantage of the benefits.

While folks are busy fretting about all the terrible things that might happen in Washington this year with a new Democrat-led Congress, Americans might need to keep a lot closer eye on their state and local politics as well. Is it just me, or does it seem that politicians are busier than usual proposing all kinds of odd-ball laws? I saw a report today that someone in New York was proposing a law banning listening to iPods while crossing the street! If legislators have this much time on their hands, they ought not meet so often.

Here in Texas, where the biennial legislative session is a notoriously short 140 days, this shouldn’t be a problem, yet I’m more concerned than usual this year. I must admit I don’t keep very close tabs on Texas state politics in Austin; the general news coverage is far from adequate and usually focusses on just a few bills. Back before the internet really caught on, there used to be an organization, the Texas Grassroots Coalition, run by Austin attorney/CPA Adrian van Zelfden, that did a great job of putting out information, especially during legislative sessions and before primaries. Perhaps nowadays with the many blogs there is something equivalent, but I have yet to discover it.

Despite the information gap, the maneuverings of the past few weeks have been enough to get the attention of even casual observers, whereas, I guess, even the astute were caught off guard by Governor Rick Perry’s draconian power grab last Friday, when he issued Executive Order RP65 mandating the HPV vaccination of all 11-12 year-old girls in the state.

There are so many things wrong with both the scientific/medical and political aspects of Perry’s action that I will leave this to others, or at least to another post. David Watts, Jr. has started a helpful blog, Overturn RP65, to track developments regarding this issue.

Besides that mess and its threats to our civil liberties, not to mention our constitutional form of government, there’s the general budget situation in Austin, and the huge surplus, which Perry, among others, hopes to spend, but ought to by and large be handed back to the citizens of Texas through tax cuts. This will be a huge fight, I’m sure, because all these billions of taxpayer dollars floating around are just asking for trouble.

In light of the very favorable budget situation, it seems awfully curious to me that Republicans are so busy trying to raise extra cash. Perry’s idea of selling the lottery, unsettling at best even for those of us who oppose state-sponsored gambling, is indefensible with so much surplus already floating around. As ususal there’s various efforts, that I haven’t managed to keep track of, to legalize additional gambling and “use the money for education”, a phrase which some political hack might as well convert to newspeak since we hear it so constantly.

Besides these, there’s the Republicans’ push to privatize new state highway construction. This is one of those ideas that sounds “conservative”, but really is just a different can of worms. Texas has had one of the best highway systems for a long time, especially considering the size of this state, and more public toll roads may well be worthwhile. Private toll roads, on the other hand, would turn the economics of highway construction and repair - and property taxation - on its head. Foreign-owned private toll roads, which have limited exits and which don’t convert to free roads once paid off, are a very bad idea.

In general, it seems state Republicans are increasingly looking for assets to sell, or otherwise mesmerized by big projects to fund, which is making a mockery of the term “conservative”. Since just about every candidate running in Texas these days boasts about how they are a conservative, a little fiscal discipline would sure be refreshing.

With their unbridled willingness to spend money and start new projects, the rush to start war in Iraq, and potentially elsewhere, even while threatening the rest of the world, I can’t help but wonder if many Republican office-holders who call themselves such even understand the meaning of the term “conservative”.

Considering how upset a lot of folks are over RP65, and the disappointments with the free-spending Republican Congress of recent years, I don’t know how much more of this Texas conservatives can take. If our legislators in Austin don’t think real hard before spending Texans’ money, they may well ensure that the 2008 primary gets very interesting.

I’ve been writing on my AeroGo site about the fundamental problems with NASA and U.S. space R&D policy (calling it a strategy would seem a stretch). Last week at the 2006 International Space Development Conference in Los Angeles, SpaceShipOne designer Burt Rutan ruffled some feathers with several criticisms of NASA and its Crew Exploration Vehicle, as well as FAA space tourism safety policy.

I’ve now posted a fairly lengthy discussion of Rutan’s comments regarding NASA and the CEV, and how they reflect many of the basic problems with U.S. space policy, as well as basic disagreements within the space community about how to make real progress.

There’s a constant tension in NASA space R&D between operational programs and development of advanced technologies, and until we clear up the confusion and systematically address (and invest) in both these areas, NASA will inevitably continue to just reinvent the past, as Rutan charges.

On the other hand, while the agency apparently continues to be guilty of overspending on big manned programs while giving space technology, science, and aeronautics scant resources, I disagree with Rutan’s view that the CEV capsule concept is inherently flawed. Nevertheless, schedule pressures do seem to once again be working their (not so good) magic at NASA.

I recently wrote on my site AeroGo (which is for students and others interested in going into the engineering and aerospace fields) about the real reasons behind NASA’s seeming inability to make much progress in manned space flight. Though there are some good things about new NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s Moon/Mars plans, already we are seeing additional hits to science budgets and a backing away from developing new spacecraft technologies.

I noted how entities such as the European Space Agency and India are getting a better return on their space technology investment by more thoughtful and efficient pacing of research and development, and how other countries have shown more interest in using the International Space Station for microgravity research than NASA has.

In summary, NASA’s key strategy flaw is an inability to build on past successes. NASA needs an incremental space technology development strategy that combines new vehicles and technologies in ways that produce new, affordable options for exploration and science. It is NASA’s inclination to start with a clean sheet of paper every time - an approach the rest of the world simply can’t afford - which has caused us to end up in a situation today where we are again looking at having to spend a decade just to get back to the Moon.

As I discuss in my AeroGo post, a much more aggressive space technology development program needs to be maintained over the long run so that designers of operational programs have the confidence needed to use new space technologies. Only with more stability in spacecraft development and the maturing of new technologies can we really hope to get costs down.

Unfortunately, the difficulty of getting stable funding from Congress may be an insurmountable obstacle to NASA’s implementing such a strategy. On the other hand, Congress seems to grasp the role of NASA as an investment in the country’s technology future, so perhaps something could be worked out if NASA shifted away from a few very large development projects to a broader array of efforts that could make better use of some of its oft-neglected research centers, e.g. Glenn in Ohio, Goddard in Maryland, Langley in Virginia, Stennis in Mississippi, and Ames and Dryden in California.

Even if NASA isn’t able to change, the number of relatively well-funded commercial space companies continues to grow. We may already be past the point where the commercial arena is seeing the most significant research investment, if indeed these firms are able to get a more efficient return on the R&D dollars in their commercial efforts, and tie these to such an incremental, well-paced development strategy.

In addition to the post on NASA’s strategy, I also recently wrote about Aviation Week’s article on the supposed Blackstar space plane and XOV orbiters, and on the resulting controversy about it. I’ve included a number of links on these articles for those seeking additional information.

I wrote on my site AeroGo about Brazil’s decision to go ahead and pay Russia for a ride for its astronaut trainee, rather than keep waiting on NASA and a seat on the shuttle.

The U.S. has missed an opportunity to build goodwill with the largest country in South America. At a time when the Bush administration is trying to stem a rising tide of socialism in the region, apparently no one was even thinking about how space might play a diplomatic role. Instead, U.S. insensitivity has pushed Brazil toward the Russians, who haven’t exactly been a model of democracy lately.

While Russia still understands how its space program can play a political role, space has been off the radar screen for decades in Washington. As a result, once again we’ve lost an opportunity to reap some return on our investment in the space program. A lot of these returns are intangible or at least difficult to measure, such as spinoff technologies and industries, but considering the enormous expense of the space program, we need to see it pay off in as many ways as possible.

Pittsburgh Business Times is reporting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved Westinghouse Electric’s design for its AP1000 pressurized water reactor. This could lead to the building of new reactors in the U.S. by 2010. Westinghouse reportedly already has a contract with Duke Energy for two AP1000s.

Well, it’s about time that nuclear gets another shot in the U.S. When you consider all the health effects from hydrocarbon pollution, plus acid rain and potential greenhouse warming, nuclear can come out looking pretty good. I have long felt that if we were really serious about energy in the U.S., nuclear would be an important part of the picture.

The big problems with nuclear in the U.S. have been management of reactor construction, extensive legal interference by those opposed, and disposal of nuclear waste. Of these, the first is industry’s fault, whereas the latter two are mostly political (and with waste, somewhat technological).

Regarding management, the U.S. historically had a lot of problems because reactor designs were not sufficiently standardized. France took a different approach, developing a standard 900MW reactor. Such standardization brings both economic and safety advantages, and it’s important that the new AP1000 design, which also may be built in China, be managed in this way.

Protests and legal wrangling have been a big problem in the U.S., and I hope that the government and industry (what little is left of it) can somehow educate the public better about the relative safety of nuclear power. While natural gas is pretty clean burning, most places would probably be far better off with a nuclear plant than a coal-burning one. Of course, one of the reasons nuclear is garnering attention now is because of the rapid rises in natural gas prices. A lot of gas power plants have been built here in Texas since deregulation, and their economics are certainly not as attractive as they once were.

Disposal of nuclear waste is really the biggest sticking point. I think a lot of the protesting would really diminish if this issue was satisfactorily resolved. Compared to Western Europe, the U.S. is in a great position for handling wastes, with much dry and virtually unpopulated land, seemingly geologically stable, but politically it’s been difficult to move forward on a permanent site. Of course, the close majorities in the U.S. Senate in recent years increases the power of even a small-population western state to stall the project.

The French developed a vitrification process for containing some waste, which is an example of how technology could provide an extra margin of safety that might make a permanent site more acceptable. I haven’t looked into the French nuclear industry in a number of years, but their approach in the past seemed much more intelligent than ours, and we could probably learn a lot from them.

I guess that’s really the bottom line. An intelligent nuclear policy is what’s needed in the U.S. I just hope it’s politically feasible.

I recently read that the U.S. is spending more now on tort litigation than it is on research and development. Unfortunately, there’s not much of an export market in torts, so I hope we will find a way to get our priorities right before China and India (and near everyone else) eats our lunch.

On my site AeroGo today I used one example, the recent discovery that weightlessness affects the immune system in a way somewhat similar to HIV, as a springboard for discussing why it’s often hard to justify exploration and research beforehand, even though we have hundreds of years of human experience that clearly show a big long-term payoff.

The problem is that we usually get it wrong when we try to predict what we’ll find and the timetable for reaping benefits. We find something unexpected and seemingly disappointing, that in the long run ends up being way bigger than what we were looking for. Columbus was looking for spices and gold. There actually was gold, just not in the West Indies. Columbus apparently had failed, because the Spanish didn’t realize at first that they’d discovered two whole continents.

The U.S. needs to aim higher and stop quibbling so much about R&D. While funding needs to increase in the private sector (in case you haven’t noticed the federal government is already in hock up to its eyeballs), even more important than an increase is the need to get a lot better at the poorly-understood techniques of targeting and scaling of R&D investment.

We need to spend less per project early on, spread funds around more broadly, and most of all invest much more consistently and for the long term, something difficult to do in the U.S., at least in government agencies and publicly-traded companies.

Shenzhou 6 has launched successfully today, and I’ve written about the Chinese space program on my site AeroGo. With regard to space policy, I noted that the Chinese are reportedly working to develop a small station and so we need to start making efforts to ensure they use common interfaces and pressures, so in the long run all manned spacecraft can have compatible docking and environmental support systems.

I also noted how the Chinese and Indian space programs have been showing steady progress for many years, and ought not be underestimated for the future.

I’ve written some of my initial thoughts on NASA’s just-announced Moon-to-Mars plan involving a larger capsule and a shuttle-derived heavy booster on my site AeroGo.