perfidy

Despite the condemnation of the institutional culture at NASA, the commission nevertheless said that the shuttle could be kept in operation for ten or more years. While I wouldn't rule out the possibility altogether, this seems a bit on the optimistic side.

The commission recommended a series of changes necessary for the shuttle to resume flights in the near term. Many of these changes involve serious changes in how the agency operates. NASA will, as the commission predicts, resist these changes. It is in the nature of bureaucracy to resist changes.

I think we need to kill NASA. We do not need a space agency. We need a space program. Once these two things were the same - during the Apollo days, but not now. A space program, to my mind, is a plan that results in achievements in space. We do not have anything remotely resembling that now.

Look at the spread of activities that NASA is engaged in now. There is much research conducted at the various NASA research centers. We have the shuttle. We have the ISS. We have a number of deep space probes. But does this add up to anything? Not that I can see.

It has been more than thirty years since the last time we walked on the moon. We have a space station that is much less useful for basic research than originally promised. At the moment, we have no capability to put a man in orbit. Our two new disposable launch vehicles are lineal descendants of ICBMs designed in the fifties. Every program that might have led to a new manned launch vehicle has been cancelled. There has been talk of Mars missions, but no timetable has been established, no vehicles built. We are not doing anything in space. Unless research on how bean sprouts grow in zero-g counts as something.

So we need a space program. But we don't need a rebirth of the Cold War space program. We need a program that establishes goals, and incentives for achieving them, and then gets the hell out of the way.

The first step, and a statement of seriousness, should be the destruction of NASA. NASA, for all its past glory, is the single greatest obstacle to real space development. The NIMBY syndrome is alive and well at NASA, and NASA has actively opposed private space development on several occasions.

But we shouldn't just fire everyone. The NASA research centers should be renamed National Laboratories, like Livermore or Brookhaven. They should continue at their current funding. Hell, give 'em more money. But they should be out of the reach of NASA administrators. NASA programs currently run by the centers would become their sole responsibility.

The space launch functions of NASA would be dissolved. The shuttles would be sold outright to private industry. Licenses for manufacture of shuttle components would be offered as well, so that cargo versions of the STS could be built and launched. Anytime that any civilian government agency wished to launch a satellite, they would be required to use a private launch company. The ISS would be privatised as much as possible given the constraints of obligations to the other nations involved in the project.

The deep space exploration functions of NASA should be formed into a new, scaled down agency. Its mandate would be exploration of space beyond the Moon's orbit. It would have two goals: 1) put a team of American astronauts on Mars, and 2) to send long duration orbiters and landers to every body in the solar system. (This agency would also operate currently existing observatory satellites like COBE and Hubble, and could launch more if it so desired.) Written into the charter of this agency should be a requirement that all Earth to orbit transport be contracted to private launch companies.

For the second goal, the new agency should be granted sufficient funding to design, build, launch and operate deep space probes, and to operate a network of ground stations and mission control centers to run the missions. This funding should stay constant, and separate from funding for the manned programs, so that these missions would not be affected by fluctuations in spending for Mars or other missions.

For the Mars mission, the mini-NASA would be allowed to retain an astronaut corps and training facilities. A plan would be developed for developing the capabilities necessary for long term space missions. For each requirement, NASA should publish general specifications, and accept bids from private industry. NASA should not be doing all the research. Any solution that meets the specifications should be acceptable, regardless of whether it was designed by NASA. The manned spaceflight division have only one goal - Mars. They should not be concerned with how they get themselves or their equipment into orbit.

Once NASA is off the scene, the way would be open for private development of space transportation technologies. There are several things that the government could do to speed the process, and help the private sector develop new space vehicles.

First and most important would be to change the laws to reduce or eliminate the current obstacles to space development. New laws could require the FAA to streamline the certification process for space vehicles, and so on. Lack of bureaucratic obstructionism and a clear commitment to space development would encourage both designers and investors.

The second would be to offer to the first company that successfully tests a working Single Stage to Orbit launch vehicle that fulfills a basic set of requirements (cargo capacity, passengers, reliability, etc.) a contract to buy ten vehicles. (The military could find some use for them, I'm sure.) Once there is a guaranteed market for space vehicles, conventional finance is far more likely to support investment in space technology. In the early days of aviation, airmail contracts had a similar positive effect on airplane development.

And third, aerospace research conducted at the former NASA research centers should be made available to the public, so that they can use it to develop innovative new launch platforms. NASA's predecessor, NACA, did something similar back in the 30s. Aviation companies could go to investors and point at NACA research and say, "See, it's possible!" This smoothed the way to planes like the DC3 and the era of large scale air transport.

If our new space agency were freed from the requirement to operate its own launch system, more resources would be available for the real goal. NASA does not need to run the shipping companies that deliver materials, or the car manufacturers that allow its employees to drive to work. These functions can be better left to private industry.

If we have many solutions, our space transportation system will be far more robust - if there is a problem with Mack trucks, the entire shipping industry does not grind to a sudden halt. If private space companies are assured of a market, they will build launchers - and likely they will become more specialized, and more efficient than the one size fits all (poorly) space shuttle. Cost per pound to orbit will drop which will allow the space agency to get more Mars mission for its taxpayer dollar.

We don't need a soviet style, top down, every problem has the same solution space program. Let us take advantage of the inventiveness of our free market system. Let a hundred systems bloom.