RealCurrents

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.

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 noted a number of observations about Hurricane Rita and the problems with the evacuations, particularly with the difficulty much of the public has in assessing risk and responding appropriately, and how public officials need to consider that in issuing warnings.

An additional problem is the lack of reserves near the end user, brought about by our just-in-time economy. If we want to leverage the just-in-time technique, then we need to compensate for it by having a more effective emergency delivery system.

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.

Welcome to RealCurrents. I’m going to focus this blog pretty much on current events and commentary. Of course you’ll find commentary on my other blogs as well, but this one will be more about the news, politics, and various issues. You’ll find my discussion of many different topics and interests of mine, mostly technical, at my blog All Things. I’ve also got a personal blog, Light Side.

This blog is mostly short-term in orientation and diagnostic in nature, analyzing current events. While bad news seems to make up the bulk of what is reported in the media, I’m hoping this blog won’t get too negative. I do hope to start another blog before too long that will take a long term, prescriptive view offering suggestions for how to actually makes things better.