Rick Tumlinson Senate Testimony, January 28
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1021
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1021&wit_id=2755
Given at a Full Committee Hearing:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Future Space Mission
Wednesday, January 28 2004 - 9:30 AM - SR-253
The Testimony of
Mr. Richard Tumlinson
President, Space Frontier Foundation
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
Just a few months ago I sat in this same room, calling for the United
States to return to the Moon, as I and many in the space frontier movement
have been doing for over twenty years. We in the Space Frontier Foundation
have been calling for NASA to retire (or scuttle) the space shuttles, get
out of Earth to LEO human and payload transport, and open the space station
to commercial activities. We have also been calling for this nation to
redefine the relationship between the government and private sector space
activities, so that a new partnership might be created which would lead to
a vital and growing human frontier in space stretching from the Earth to
the Moon and beyond.
A few weeks ago, I was privileged (and somewhat surprised, given my long
history of criticism of our national space program) to be invited by the
White House to attend the President's announcement that this nation would
indeed be returning to the Moon. As you can imagine I was pleased to hear
that our message had been heard.
Ladies and gentlemen, I sat just a few feet from the President as he made
his historic announcement, just as some of you did. And I looked into the
man's eyes as deeply as I could during the whole speech. I believe he means
what he is saying. I believe he truly wants us to begin opening space to
the American people, to establish this nation permanently on the Moon and
from their to catapult ourselves to the planet Mars and beyond.
I am not so naive as to be unaware of the political aspects of his
announcement, dropped into the middle of the primary season of the opposing
party, nor the positive note it adds to his own candidacy for re-election.
But I am also aware of the downside of making such an announcement in a
campaign year, especially at time when many who oppose his policies will be
automatically pre-disposed to attack the ideas he spoke of, simply because
they came from his mouth. Just as if, were he to say the sky is blue, his
opponents would immediately argue that it is not. So to be honest, there is
both an up and a down side to his timing. In fact, a part of me wishes he
would have waited until after the elections, as I do not wish to see the
Democratic party make a knee jerk reaction that rejects the core concepts
of his proposal.
The fact that this plan is designed to begin with small incremental down
payments that grow like the balloon payment on a home mortgage in the years
after he leaves office also does not go unnoticed. But I can attribute this
to the desire to make the idea a bit easier to swallow now, and is based on
his confidence that our national economy will be able to handle such costs
when the bill comes due. Even with major growth in our national space
budget, the numbers spoken of are much smaller than the relative cost of
our first push to the Moon was to our over all GDP.
I think the timeline is too slow - after all we went to the Moon from an
almost standing start, developing three or four new launchers (if you count
the LEM) and did it all in 7 years over 35 years ago. Let's get some
challenge in there! It will help to focus and drive our space program.
Also, I believe International partnering should not be based on State Dept.
motives, but who can do the best work in a given area at the best price.
International deals are done every second in the private sector on just
such a basis.
Finally, the real private sector MUST be involved early on, not as a show,
not as an after thought. If the Moon base is to turn into a settlement or
community, it has to be designed to do so from day one. For example, as I
discuss below, after the scouting and base camp phase, it would be good to
see something along the line of NASA offering to rent X square feet of the
buildings for X number of years or some such scheme that builds in the idea
that NASA is not trying to yet again take on more facilities and overhead,
but is just passing through on the way to Mars.
However, overall, I am supportive of the concept as outlined in his speech.
The Moon, Mars and the asteroids that float between the worlds of our solar
system do indeed represent the future of humanity. It would be pure
ignorant hubris to declare that we should not expand our species and the
domain of life beyond this Earth, much like the declarations of a serf in
medieval Europe proclaiming that the world ends just beyond the boundaries
of his own village. Similarly, there is the short term thinking that leads
to the conclusion that somehow science and the advancement of knowledge
will somehow be damaged by the growth of human activities in space. As if
the exploration and settlement of this new world where we sit today somehow
held back the march of scientific progress, rather than driving our
advancements and understanding of ourselves and the universe forward at a
pace unknown before our ancestors struck out into the unknown. We are truly
just at the bare beginnings of the story of humanity and the life forms of
the Earth. And we stand poised to take bold steps outwards if we can do so
wisely, economically, and for the right reasons. Those reasons are as wide
and varied as those who look at the Moon and stars at night and feel their
calling. Many speakers have laid out the possibilities, from Dr. Paul
Spudis, who sang of the possibilities offered by the Moon, to Dr. Robert
Zubrin , who waxes poetic about the vast vistas available to us on the
planet Mars, Dr Gerard O'Neill, my mentor, who created a vision of humanity
spreading out in colonies of glass and steel in the space between worlds.
All of these visions can be made real. All of the benefits to us these men
have spoken of are real, as are a thousand more they could no more imagine
than those who first came to this new world could imagine that the land
they were exploring for gold and glory would give the world the Bill of
Rights, the Constitution, and an ongoing revolution in thought, science and
medicine that has completely transformed our human civilization.
And therein lies the big question. Does the President's proposal leads to
the Real opening of the frontier - by which I mean the expansion of the
human domain beyond the Earth? Not outposts, not stations, not
laboratories, but economically viable and growing communities of human
beings that can eventually become new branches of our civilization. For if
that is not the end point of this exercise, then, as some in our science
community have said repeatedly, we should send robots instead. Also, if
this endeavor is to be led by and for the government, and the above is its
litmus test for success, it will fail. Governments do not open frontiers.
People do - with the assistance of their governments, and sometimes in
spite of those same governments. To succeed Every possible way to produce
value (Include scientific value as well as economic) must be combined. If
those two elements are then put into an equation, and the end result is
positive or can be projected to turn positive we have a winner. If not, we
have a negative cash/value flow and a loser. (NOTE - None of these elements
was considered or kept on the table for ISS!)
--- Put giant KISS! (Keep It Simple Stupid!) posters everywhere, in all
centers and offices. Give rewards for designs and ideas that go that way
instead of the high tech, over specialized direction. For example, Rutan
trumpets the fact that his flyers are the lowest technology, most off the
shelf he could build, and where possible, units and structures are
duplicated (look at the shapes etc. of his carrier and sub-orbital elements
- cast in the same molds). Learn the lesson and apply it to the Moon. If a
Home Depot bolt will work, use it. If you can go with voltages, air
pressures etc. that make things simpler, then do it. Save high tech for
later...
--- Rather than designing the habs etc. themselves, NASA should stay Lewis
and Clark-like and focus on such things as scouting expeditions, and an
early base camp that is designed to be expandable. Then put out a call to
the non-space community for facilities that are low cost, robust, low
maintenance and modular or expandable on a larger scale. NASA and other
agencies could then sign ten or fifteen year leases, indicating (in the
case of NASA) they are not planning on squatting down on the Moon but are
moving on. (not ISS redux on the Moon.)
--- So some NASA guy will look out there and say we can't find any firms
engaged in the right kinds of activities or willing to partner with
us. Duh. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course not. You killed
them all over the last thirty years, or trashed their ideas and killed off
their investors, or supported your aerospace friends to the point you drove
them out of business.
The private sector has been so burned for so long by NASA in the past that
they must be coaxed back into space. Sponsor events and meetings with
people in the military, business and commercial research/transport/life
support communities and listen to them. Oil platforms, private diving bells
and Navy subs, Hilton Hotels, airlines, all have lessons that can be
transferred to this effort. The private sector has done a fair job of
turning this New World into a permanent and expanding frontier. I bet they
can help a little on the next one.
The International Space Station
As we move forward to the Moon, the International Space Station should be
transformed into a multi-faceted nexus for both government and private
sector activities. Some of these activities will be in support of the Lunar
effort, and some will not, but all will contribute to the development of a
vibrant human presence in LEO.
In his speech the President said:
"Our first goal is to complete the International Space Station by 2010 &
finish what we have started."
Let me make a few important points: --- Almost all the original goals laid
out for the space station have already been abandoned. It needs to be
redefined and the program totally reformed or this will not happen.
--- We are not in charge of the station. We have partners who are using it
for their own purposes, and interestingly, many of those partners are
moving quickly towards private sector dominance of their activities and
areas on station - as should we.
--- As the agency is cutting back its level of participation, there will be
other orbital facilities, including the first space hotel modules, if
entrepreneurs such as the self-funded Bob Bigelow in Nevada are to be
believed (and given his wealth, determination and the realistic basis of
his plans as revealed so far I do believe him.) other firms are looking at
modules that might attach at first to the ISS and then through a "budding"
process become independent free flying facilities themselves. Remember, the
Chinese will also be flying their own facility by that time. This all means
that a community can be developed that will create an economics of scale, a
mutual interdependence and back up capability in case of disasters and
accidents. (See my 1995 Testimony to the House Space Subcommittee on the
idea of "Alpha Town" the first community in orbit.)
I used to be in favor of what I called an International Space Station
Authority. This would have been a mechanism to wrest control from NASA and
hand it to a more commercial friendly entity that would be less likely to
play favorites when it came to which companies would provide services,
establish the rule of law, set safety standards etc.
As a great military strategist once said that the commander who cannot
change his tactics based on changes on the field of battle is doomed to
lose. Thus I have dropped the ISSA concept, since NASA is planning to
divest its majority ownership one way or the other in the coming years.
The future I see for the facility would be one wherein NASA's role would
become that of a tenant, who's main focus is the preparation and
experimentation it needs to plan missions to Mars. I would like to see the
US government set up a management structure for the US portion that would
allocate NASA what it needs, and also open the rest of our ISS elements up
to private sector use. This could mean anything from university operated
labs and experiments to commercial research. Also, the new charter would
allow and encourage the attachment of new modules, probably completely
commercially owned and operated that could house experiments, and even
accommodations for commercial guests such as future Dennis Titos (who I had
the honor of signing up to fly into space a few years ago). Another
commercial activity would be a construction shack and factory operated by
commercial astronauts based on Dennis Wingo's on orbit assembly concepts.
These space workers would be engaged in activities such as on-orbit
construction of large space telescopes, antenna arrays, large space probes
and even the ships to travel to Mars. One major idea would be to have the
Hubble space telescope moved by an orbital tug to an orbit above the ISS,
so that it could be lowered to the facility for astronaut EVAs to service
it. The Hubble is far too valuable a resource to throw away, and NASA plans
to do so are expensive, limited in vision and reveal a complete lack of
understanding of the frontier ethic of keeping things low cost by re-using
and re-cycling whenever possible.
Space Transportation
The President Said:
Our second goal...to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew
Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no
later than 2014..."
--- I can see the SEV becoming the new OSP/X-33/NASP/X-38/ etc. - a cash
draining, show killing tech project. NO NO NO! if every element in the
transportation part of the equation isn't low cost, robust and re-usable or
designed to become so ASAP, then let's quit now and go home as this project
is DOA.
--- By the time NASA speaks of pulling out of its major role on ISS, there
will probably be other players in the Earth to LEO transportation arena, so
the support of ISS will not be a limited sum game. There may well be a wide
array of possible Earth to Leo transportation alternatives. The private
sector firms that make up what I call the Alternative or Alt.Space
transportation firms will be well on their way to becoming full fledged
orbital access providers - if the government can provide the regulatory and
investment incentives they so desperately need if they are incentivised to
cross from largely being sub-orbital or small payload orbital companies
into the orbital game by prizes and multiple source pay for delivery services.
--- NASA must get out of the Earth to LEO business entirely. An astronaut's
mission used to start on the Earth's surface. This will no longer be true.
They will be able to ride into space on private vehicles, and NASA can save
its time and funds working on the next leap - between planets. I know some
think there will be an all-in-one vehicle developed for transit from Earth
surface to these other worlds, but such a concept is ridiculous, short
sighted and probably the most expensive way such movement can be
accomplished. If one reads the President's policy carefully, and from a
frontier perspective, the call for a crew Exploration Vehicle can be read
as meaning a transporter that lives in space, and goes to and from
destinations there, without returning to Earth itself. (A model that makes
far more sense than carrying all of the hardware one would need for
transits in and out of our atmosphere.)
--- The Near Frontier transportation system will need a re-fueling
capability that can circumvent the incredibly high costs of bringing
propellant up from the Earth's surface, and a port for flights to and from
the Moon and eventually Mars. Paul Spudis and others have advocated mining
Lunar elements at the poles of the Moon and using them to create space
gas that can then be shipped down the gravity well and used to re-fuel all
kinds of space craft, and satellites. I understand one might not wish to
have a space "gas station" in close proximity to inhabited facilities, but
it can be developed and constructed using ISS astronauts. The NASA
institutional side of the facility could contract out services from the
commercial team if needed for fueling their Mars ships.
---I am also concerned that projects like the planned nuclear Prometheus
vehicle and other high tech space-to-space elements will pace and slow down
the program. This must not be allowed to happen. Stay simple at first. Get
the first rope across the ravine, then work up to the foot bridge and then
go for the super highway. Start development early though, so your needs
intersect with your capabilities down the road...so to speak.
As I discussed last fall, there is a growing alternative space movement
there in America. Whatever NASA does or does not do, this community, which
is investing tens of millions to develop new space vehicles and orbital
facilities, will open the space frontier in its own way. While America
turned its eye to the past at Kittyhawk this December, famed aircraft
designer Burt Rutan's sub-orbital rocket ship broke the sound barrier in
Mojave, California. Few noticed, and fewer understand what this means. But
as I also noted in my previous testimony, the goal of flying the first
non-government rocketship into space is on track to be realized before the
end of this year. Elon Musk's SpaceX will be flying small payloads into
orbit at a dramatically lower cost per pound than current government
vendors within the same time frame, and at least a half dozen other firms
are on track to cross the finish lines in this alternative space race.
I mention this to let you know that there really are potential commercial
partners out there beyond the current NASA contractors. The door to space
is about to be blown wide open.
The Moon
The President said:
Our third goal is to return to the Moon by 2020.
Most of the comments I would make on this third element of his plan are
contained in the following OpEd.
Return to the Moon - For the Right Reasons, in the Right Way (from an
editorial in Space News)
"We do this and the other things not because they are easy, but because
they are hard..." President John F. Kennedy - from his speech announcing
Apollo.
Any discussion of a permanent return to the Moon (RTM) must be centered on
two over riding questions: Why? and How? The answers to each of those
questions are interrelated and one affects the other. If we go for the
wrong reasons we will fail. If we go for the right reasons and do it the
wrong way, we will fail. And if we don't go at all, then we will have
failed in a way that will send ripples down through the ages.
There are many different answers to Why? They include: far side
observatories to seek life on other worlds; studies of Earth's history by
studying the Moon's surface and geology; near side Earth observation
telescopes (Triana on the Moon); searching for platinum class metals in
asteroids buried in the surface; giant solar arrays beaming power to
communications satellites and solar sail transports; isolated laboratories
to try new and dangerous schemes; taking the high ground militarily;
driving the creation of new technologies; and of course, backing up the
biosphere and human civilization in case of catastrophe and expanding the
domain of life and humanity.
There are also a few more subtle reasons we go:
We go to force the re-structuring of our national space activities.
--NASA's human spaceflight program today is like an old ex- athlete who won
the Olympics a long time ago. It is bloated, inflexible, self-indulgent,
and lives on re-runs of its better days. It is neither inspiring nor
useful. In fact, it is harmful, as without a mandate to move out to the Far
Frontier of the Moon and beyond, NASA has squatted down in LEO and claimed
it as its own, blocking any who might try to do anything useful on its
turf. We can let it slowly die, or we can trim the fat and get it into
shape by making it get out of the doorway to space, back into the arena,
and forcing it to run again - this time with a team-mate called private
enterprise - to whom it can hand the baton at the right moment.
We go to inspire. - The most important thing we got out of Apollo was
inspiration. It was a star of hope in the darkness of the Cold War. It was
the reason I am in this field, and the same goes for many of you reading
this. The internet, telecom, the incredible advances in medicine and
science, these breakthroughs are coming from organizations whose founders
and investors were often born and raised during the Apollo program, and
while its legacy was still fresh. If one looks at the numbers of engineers
and science students graduated in the US, there is a clear correlation, and
right now those numbers are falling, fast.
We go to prepare for even greater things. - We cannot throw expendable
humans at Mars without knowing what happens to a spacesuit in a high
radiation, high temperature differential, dirty, vacuum after its been worn
and sweated in for six weeks. We need to learn how to operate off planet,
how to build for permanence and how to live off the land in space. Also,
those who advocate a direct drive to Mars ignore a major historical fact -
the colonies in North America could not have survived without the ports of
England and Europe. The development of a strong Earth-LEO-Moon
infrastructure, dominated by commercial enterprises, is a necessity, if
humans-to Mars is not to be another unsustainable flags and foot prints
fiasco or perennial taxpayer funded government housing project.
The How? of returning to the Moon partially determines the Why? For
example, if the timeline is too long, the budget too large, the end goal
too amorphous, and the whole project is run by the usual suspects in the
usual way, the end result will be an uninspiring, over budget dead end like
the International Space Station (ISS). To make a Return to the Moon
permanent, inspiring, economical and beneficial to the taxpayers who pay
for it all, we must do the right things.
The Greatest Frontier
All of these ideas, for a new and revitalized ISS, for a return to the
Moon, the establishment of the first space settlements, and the dream of
expanding life beyond Earth, will not be achievable if we do the wrong
things, proceed in the wrong manner, and aim at the wrong goals.
First, we must ignore the whining of those who say they need a lot more
money and time. We went from a standing start to standing on the Moon in
under ten years - forty years ago! Keep in mind, when Kennedy asked the
NASA of that time if it could be done, they told him no, and then they went
and did it when ordered to.
Next, we must re-structure NASA, as the agency in its current form cannot
handle the job. The center-based structure of today must be ended and
several non-relevant centers closed or handed over to other agencies.
Activities such as aeronautics and Earth studies must be handed off to the
FAA and NOAA. Planetary robotic exploration should be given to JPL and the
National Science Foundation (NSF).
NASA must shed operational activities such as LEO transport and running the
space station. The Orbital Space Plane should be canceled - now. Prizes,
multiple source contracts, investment and tax incentives must be put in
place to encourage the new Alt.Space firms to take over human transport to
space, and drive the traditional aerospace giants to modernize or get out
of the field. The space station should be mothballed, handed to our
partners or be taken over by a quasi-commercial Space Station Authority as
a destination for commercial and university users. ISS and other NASA pet
projects must not be grafted onto a moon project simply because they exist.
If they really support it they are in, if not, they are out.
What is left should be divided into two parts. The first should be a lean
mean human exploration machine that focuses on the Lewis and Clark function
and acquiring or creating the lowest tech tools possible to travel and
explore beyond the Earth. The second should be an agency like the old
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics from which NASA was created.
Its job would be to push the envelope of space technologies and systems in
support of our space industries.
The new NASA would then be one of several players in any RTM project along
with DOD, DARPA, NOAA, NSF, universities, and most importantly, the
commercial sector. NASA will support planetary transportation systems
development, scouting, surveying and pitching the first base camp, then
others take over as the agency focuses on developing systems for Mars
exploration - it's next destination.
For the Moon Base to survive and prosper, it must be built in the right
spot, it must be robust, easy to operate at low cost, as self sufficient as
possible and be easy to expand. The International Space Station is failing
because it is in the wrong place, too delicate, too expensive to operate,
and produces nothing of great value - scientific or commercial. To pay for
the Moon Base we must combine a wide variety of income producing activities
and services, such as those listed above. BUT, the people building the
habitats after the first phase, operating the telescopes, and running the
facility itself should NOT be government employees. The long term Lunar
facilities should be designed and built by private firms in response to a
short list of needs put out by the partners, with the US government leasing
those it needs. Long term management of the base should be in the form of a
Moon Base Authority to promote new activities, manage infrastructure,
oversee safety, and enforce the law.
Tied to the Earth with Red Tape
Forget the Moon, forget Mars. The greatest frontier NASA has to face is
itself. From timid bureaucracies to over burdening regulations and
procurement rules to outright Not Invented Here turf oriented jealousies,
NASA's culture must be changed, and this mandate must come from outside of
the agency, and even from beyond the scope of the new commission being
formed as we speak to look into how to accomplish these goals. Without
dramatic, near-term and permanent changes the President's initiative will
fail. And I am very afraid that the discussion now underway is nowhere near
strong enough nor has it reached deeply enough to force logical people to
make the hard choices needed.
For example, at a level above the agency, we must modify the overly
burdensome Federal Acquisition Regulations or throw them out completely in
favor of fee for service and delivery business style operations. Along the
way the incredible piles of paperwork NASA uses to certify and manage each
piece of hardware should be pared to a minimum. The space community is rife
with examples of NASA loading potential providers down with paperwork.
Sometimes even the simplest sounding deal is drowned in paper. Safety and
quality needs to be assured certainly, but at some point it gets ridiculous.
This story came to me from Bill Haynes, a former Air Force test pilot.
(Consider) the carabiners astronauts use to tether themselves during EVA.
The best climber's carabiner at REI costs $19.00. I found the manufacturer
of NASA's carabiners, and he said he charges $1,095.00 each. When I told
him about REI's, he said sure, he could probably sell his for a $100 or so,
except that NASA requires a "pedigree" all the way from the mine for every
ounce of aluminum in his, his welders and machinists each have to be
re-certified every six months and the paperwork stack that accompanies each
carabiner is inches high. That might make sense for say, the turbine
buckets in the Space Shuttle Main Engines. It makes absolutely no sense for
those carabiners that will never encounter more than about a fifty lb. load
in space. The REI carabiners are rated at 6,500 lbs.
This approach to the business of space will not get us to the Moon again.
New Approaches
Every possible way to produce value (Include scientific value as well as
economic) must be combined and every way to reduce costs must be found. If
those two elements are then put into an equation, and the end result is
positive or can be projected to turn positive we have a winner. If not, we
have a negative cash/value flow and a loser. (NOTE - None of these elements
was considered or kept on the table for ISS!)
--- Put giant KISS! (Keep It Simple Stupid!) posters everywhere, in all
centers and offices. Give rewards for designs and ideas that go that way
instead of the high tech, over specialized direction. For example, Rutan
trumpets the fact that his flyers are the lowest technology, most off the
shelf he could build, and where possible, units and structures are
duplicated (look at the shapes etc. of his carrier and sub-orbital elements
- cast in the same molds). Learn the lesson and apply it to the Moon. If a
Home Depot bolt will work, use it. If you can go with voltages, air
pressures etc. that make things simpler, then do it. Save high tech for
later...
--- Rather than designing the habs etc. themselves, NASA should stay Lewis
and Clark-like and focus on such things as scouting expeditions, and an
early base camp that is designed to be expandable. Then put out a call to
the non-space community for facilities that are low cost, robust, low
maintenance and modular or expandable on a larger scale. NASA and other
agencies could then sign ten or fifteen year leases, indicating (in the
case of NASA) they are not planning on squatting down on the Moon but are
moving on. (not ISS redux on the Moon.)
--- NASA should offer to buy data wherever possible. Prizes should be
offered for milestones that can be reasonably offered to the private
sector. Or if the word prizes is unpalatable, let's call them contingency
contracts . For example, within the next year or so a short term, let's say
2 year contingency contract of around $80 million could be offered for
high resolution images of the potential base camp site at the Lunar south
pole. If it is won, we get our information cheap and spur several new firms
into action. If not, there is still plenty of time for NASA to launch its
own probes.
--- So some NASA guy will look out there and say we can't find any firms
engaged in the right kinds of activities or willing to partner with us.
Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course not. NASA killed them all
over the last thirty years, or trashed their ideas and killed off their
investors, or supported their aerospace friends to the point you drove them
out of business.
The private sector has been so burned for so long by NASA in the past that
they must be coaxed back into space. Sponsor events and meetings with
people in the military, business and commercial research/transport/life
support communities and listen to them. Oil platforms, private diving bells
and Navy subs, Hilton Hotels, airlines, all have lessons that can be
transferred to this effort. The private sector has done a fair job of
turning this New World into a permanent and expanding frontier. I bet they
can help a little on the next one.
I was heartened to see the inclusion of language in the President's policy
that indicated an awareness of these needed changes, but I'm still
concerned that bureaucratic inertia will swallow any new and radically
different ideas (or what those of us outside of the agency might call
common sense ).
The idea of an outside commission to lay the groundwork for this push
outwards is a good idea. But it needs to be vested with real authority, and
be comprised of space experts, business leaders and out of the
box thinkers. Unfortunately I am concerned the deck is already being
stacked the wrong way, even if it is not being done so consciously.
The leadership of the commission for example, must be free of all ties to
those who stand to benefit from its deliberations, nor should they have
that appearance. This is not to question the integrity of anyone who might
volunteer their time to do this important work, but to avoid any questions
whatsoever about the validity of their findings and plans. I am hopeful
that such considerations are going into the selection process, and any such
issues are being rectified.
If the right people are assembled for this work, and given the mandate that
appears in the president's speech - namely to open the space frontier, then
I am confident that logic, history and common sense will prevail in their
plans. I hope the White House, this body and NASA in particular pay
attention, interact with them and move on their recommendations. I would
also hope that the commission be empaneled to revisit this new space agenda
on a regular basis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I think we have before us an exciting and powerful vision.
We need not empty the coffers of our nation to make it happen, and in fact
will create enormous new wealth, in the form of both economic and
scientific wealth. If we can employ the power and genius of free enterprise
we can transform our moribund space program into something incredible. But
the people in this room, in this building and in this town must lead this
time, and not be led, by lobbyists and Center Directors, party bickering
and pork barrel politics. Let's get back to exploring. Let's let loose our
reborn Lewis and Clarks to blaze the way for new generations and let's make
sure everyone, especially those at NASA know they are spending our money to
clear the way so we can follow. The space program will then get all the
support it needs.
For if we want to inspire and create excitement in our children we must go
somewhere! Go fast, go hard, and don't wait around developing the
absolutely highest tech most expensive machine to get there. Use what
you've got and go! Live off the land. Put the urgency of danger and joy of
discovery together and people will pay attention. Explore! Shine a light
into a new lava tube on the moon...Dig for that water in the Aikin basin,
show the blast off of the first mission to Mars, launched from the Moon &
the pale blue marble of Earth in the distance. Feed that helmet camera shot
of the Valles Marinaris to the world. And cover it live, good or bad,
success or failure, life or death...
For good measure, don't deny that people will die, or act surprised when it
happens - make that risk part of the message....drop the obsessive lip
service about safety and focus on being safe....assure that NASA and our
people in space are doing their best to be safe, adopt serious procedures
to avoid death....but say up front that people will die on this quest.
And once we are back to the Moon DONT STOP...it will be just as boring for
NASA to be landlord on the Moon as in LEO. Show some learning. Get there,
scout, set up the beginnings of the base. As others move in (universities,
institutes, commercial users) the agency can go off in a nearby crater and
begin developing its planetary surface exploration capabilities, then move
on to Mars, where the vistas are larger and the opportunities for long term
excitement abound. But don't squat down again. MOVE.
--
Space Future | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".