3 criteria for 'Big' space missions - National Security, Economy, Expression o

clark · 2003-04-23 09:45:15

'Big

. During the same recent interview by "Space.com" in which he expressed his strong desire to start flying Shuttles again before the end of 2003, O'Keefe [NASA Director] pooh-poohed the idea of aiming at any time in the near future for manned flights to the Moon or Mars:
"There are only two or three things, the space agency head contends, that motivate big goals as a national imperative: national security, economics, or expressions of sovereignty. Nothing on the space horizon is apparent in this regard...that might foster a big destination goal.
"So rather than sit, sweat, fret, and argue about which one of those destination objectives everybody could get around...focus all that attention, time and effort into all the enabling technologies that would make any of those goals feasible in the future. That's the logic.' "

What struck me was the delination of the three goals that would motivate large space intitives.

National Security
Economy
Expression of national soverignty.

So here is my take. The Bush administration has supported increasing NASA's budget to about 18 billion in the next three years (it is about 15 billion now). NASA is developing 'enabling' technologies. Nothing that will take us to the places we want to go, but prepare us for the day when we do decide to go.

The Bush administration has a platform of National Security. I post in another thread about this administrations, and the militaries interest in developing our space infrastructure and ability. Increasingly, space is linked to ensuring our national security. So I think the ground work is being laid here.

Two, Economy. Our economy is not what it once was- if Bush is taking a page from Regan, as it looks like with his increases in defense and cuts in taxes, we will see more investment in aerospace to develop the space technologies needed for a modern military. Most of the large states in the US have sectors that are directly linked to the rise and fall of space budgets. Spending on space development has the effect of bringing jobs to these states, which in turn equal votes for the senators or congresspeople.

Three, expression of national soverignty. China is launching men into space in October. Probably before we get the shuttle up in space again. China has a long range view of developing space, which includes the moon. The spectar of 'communism' once again hanging over our head just might be the correct formula for spuring increases in space budgets.

Now, there are other elements that could act as a sign of what the future will hold. There is a bit of a crisis in aerospace industries and NASA becuase there are simply not enough qualified people with the skill sets neccessary to replace the previous generation. There is an increasing call for attempts to attract more people into this field. Last time they did it with Apollo.

I for one can't wait to see what platforms develop for the 2004 election...

Thougts?

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-23 10:07:48

Here's a platform I'd like to see:

The New Frontier platform.

America seems to miss its frontier and therefore is striking out with military imperialism. Now is the time to use this expansionistic desire and strike out into space. We can turn our destructive power into creative power. New worlds await us and our creative abilities. Let us stop our wars and contentions and strike out on a new adventure, new discoveries, new LIFE!!! Viva la frontera!!! Viva la FRONTERA!!!

Bill White · 2003-04-23 12:30:05

Goals and objectives:

National Security
Economy
Expression of national soverignty.

Might we see National Security/Sovereignty as being at odds with Economy?

Looking at NAFTA; the elimination of trade barriers between EU nations; the globalized world economy and such phenonema as US corporations moving "offshore" to tax havens like Bermuda or seeking to sell high tech to the Chinese, nationalism may not be the best vehicle for embarking on the road to space. That said, a pan-national Pax Americana might just seek such goals.

In the 21st century the economy will be increasingly controlled by multi-national corporations having no obvious loyalty to any given nation state and people *might* well start to focus on other factors in forging a self defined identity.

Nationalism is a big question in Iraq. Is being Iraqi "more important" than being Sunni, Ba'ath, Shi'ite or Kurd? Can Iraqi Kurds be content being separate from Turkish Kurds? Samuel Huntington has addressed these issues in depth. Does the US of A have the cultural unity to found "American" settlements that would attract unified US loyalty whether the settlers listened to the preaching of Jerry Falwell OR Jesse Jackson, both of whom are authentic (if very different) flavors of American Baptist preacher.

IMHO, the people of the United States do not today possess a comprehensive shared vision of where humanity is heading. Look at today's furor over Rick Santorum or the recent furor over Trent Lott. Therefore, IMHO, the United States taken as a whole, is not a good candidate to be the prime agent in founding settlements. As you know, clark, I suspect that settling space might assist the agenda of an American sub-group which seeks to influence or define future American identity.

"America" or "NASA" perhaps is not the actor or protagonist on whom we should focus. Rather, the federal budget and the NASA agenda are playing fields on which other groups - smaller and more internally cohesive - jockey to establish position.

Next, setting aside an expression of national sovereignty through the founding of settlements, how much of our national defense needs human presence? Can unmanned robot spacecraft play a very significant role to assure LEO hegemony? Perhaps with a very limited human presence for lunar mining of fuel, water and oxygen.

Bill White · 2003-04-23 14:55:59

One significant example of America being deeply divided on questions of science is here.

An evangelical American President may need to answer "Why Mars?" in a way that is satisfactory to -BOTH- sides of this Texas Tech dispute. A difficult task, indeed.

clark · 2003-04-23 15:15:07

An evangelical American President may need to answer "Why Mars?" in a way that is satisfactory to -BOTH- sides of this Texas Tech dispute. A difficult task, indeed.

But matters of religion are not affected by a manned space program. This is a mighty wide jump to make, IMO, equating resolution of religious strife with scientific principles as a neccessary precursor to space development.

Why the Moon?

A Catholic President answered that question. No one said the Pope made him do it. And I don't think too many religious leaders opposed the idea on, well, any grounds,

How is any religion threatened by manned missions to space?

The only connection is the one you have pointed out, in terms of end time mythology. Yet accepting that as a legitimate reason to not pursue space is suicide for any would be leader- you are then openly admiting that you believe the "end" is near. Not something that engenders confidence in my elected officals...

Bill White · 2003-04-23 15:59:06

I do sincerely hope my fears in this regard are overblown.

Still, an evangelical President would seem well advised politically to avoid any pronouncements whatsoever on the long term future of humans in space (except maybe cliche "pep" talks) while especially avoiding "visionary" pronouncements that allow plausible inferences on his personal views of an "end times" theology to which roughly 40% to 50% of Americans assert at least some measure of adherence. (Percentages vary widely depending on the precise poll question asked)

Simply avoiding the question altogether - "why (or why not) Mars?" - seems a sensible political strategy for Bush. Dodges like "We are looking into that" for example, or "We will get back to you, next decade. . ." or "NASA is hard at work on enabling technology"

As you say, developing space capable technology for military use (with hope for future civilian use) may well be best we can expect for many, many years to come. Isn't this exactly what has been explained by Sean Keefe?

I guess a better way to express my point might be: "Do not expect *ANY* Presidential leadership on "humans to Mars" any time soon."

Why the Moon?
A Catholic President answered that question. No one said the Pope made him do it. And I don't think too many religious leaders opposed the idea on, well, any grounds,

What was JFK's answer? To beat the Soviets.

Dwight Eisenhower called Apollo a "damn fool" publicity stunt. Science and human spirit issues were addded as window dressing.

How is any religion threatened by manned missions to space?

Why was the Vatican threatened by Galileo and Copernicus?

clark · 2003-04-24 07:42:11

Still, an evangelical President would seem well advised politically to avoid any pronouncements whatsoever on the long term future of humans in space (except maybe cliche "pep" talks)

Why? Could you explain why you think an evangelical President should avoid "long term future of humans in space" pronouncements? What do they lose by making such a pronouncement?

while especially avoiding "visionary" pronouncements that allow plausible inferences on his personal views of an "end times" theology to which roughly 40% to 50% of Americans assert at least some measure of adherence.

somthing along the lines of, "Do you think the end times are occuing now" or "Do you believe in the teachings of Revelations?"

A large majority of people do not really believe that the end of the world is going to happen- if people actually thought that, things would be mighty different around here...

People maintain a fantasy as a means to cope, that's it.

Simply avoiding the question altogether - "why (or why not) Mars?" - seems a sensible political strategy for Bush. Dodges like "We are looking into that" for example, or "We will get back to you, next decade. . ." or "NASA is hard at work on enabling technology"

It is a sensible strategy because there is no commitment until the point where you are fully prepared to commit to a virtual certainty. JFk didn't wake up and say, send us to the moon. Capabilities were identified, and areas of neccessary improvement were identified, and then an assessment of what we would be capable of doing, and in what time frame... or am I mistaken?

As you say, developing space capable technology for military use (with hope for future civilian use) may well be best we can expect for many, many years to come. Isn't this exactly what has been explained by Sean Keefe?

O'Keefe is bringing NASA on track to increase its credibility on the Hill. While most scientists wouldn't touch the NASA directorship with a ten foot pole right now, I think his skills are just what the agency needs. You kind of hit the nail on the head, but thats why we need to take a step back and look at the overall trend with space. There is an increased and very real desire to expand our abilities in space. There are concrete arguments that can now be made that validate our involvement.

I guess a better way to express my point might be: "Do not expect *ANY* Presidential leadership on "humans to Mars" any time soon."

Well, I still have a few more years of belief left...

What was JFK's answer? To beat the Soviets.

Point taken. How about Bush's answer: National security. To beat the Chinese- or better yet, "to lead this world to the next one, Mars."

Bush Senior suggested Mars once. That means little, I know. But Bush relies on the advice of his close advisors- there are three in particular that have a very keen interest in space.

Tell me that NASA's current plans is *not* sensible. No big missions, just incremental increases (nice and steady) in the budget to achieve the goals that will *allow* the big missions the day after next.

Look at the time frames for development of much of the technology that we need to get to Mars. Sure, we could go today- but it would be little more than suicide. Yet look at the time frame beyond 2010. Everything will either be produced (second or third generation vehicles), or be ready for testing (like Prometheus in 2011 for the Jupiter mission).

2015 looks even better. My bet is based on a belief that if the same vision is held by the next administration, whatever it may be, then the time will be perfect for a declaration of intent in the next presidency. And at the very least, if not Mars, then the Moon. (2003-2004 will see the first private ventures on the Moon), 2010 is the goal for Chinese ambitions for the moon.

Why was the Vatican threatened by Galileo and Copernicus?

Becuase their teachings contrdicted church teachings. Sending people to Mars or the moon violates no teachings. Does it?

tim_perdue · 2003-04-24 09:33:31

The Bush Regime sort of has a track record now of "big ideas", no matter the cost. Rumsfeld and several others are in love with space, particularly military space.

So you could conclude that they will unveil something big soon. It would have a better effect on the economy than their ridiculous tax cuts, and probably a lot cheaper.

Plus, Sean O'Keefe has already leaked a "mars trip" story to the LA Times. I'm thinking that was a "trial balloon" to test the waters. Anyone else remember that story, right before the State of the Union?

Bill White · 2003-04-25 07:48:22

clark has done a fairly good job of setting my straw men on fire. . .

This vision of developing military space, building capabilities and maybe trying something more openly spectacular in 15 or 20 or 25 years is probably what will happen, unless NASA's true mission is to be the "Emperor's New Space Program" - in other words - flash the occasional "flags and footprints" mission for public consumption while building the base needed for US Space Command to retain total dominance of LEO.

Whether this base is used for future civilian space settlement will be a decision made by future generations.

In the meantime, Sean Keefe's #1 mission objective - IMHO - may very well be to lower public expectations concerning civilians in space.

clark · 2003-04-25 08:56:18

This vision of developing military space, building capabilities and maybe trying something more openly spectacular in 15 or 20 or 25 years is probably what will happen

I think it will be much sooner, and the commitment will differ from the Apollo experience. Also, I might add, Apollo was very much about improving our military capabilities in space...

It will be itneresting to see what happens with the outer space treaty and the moon treaty.

In the meantime, Sean Keefe's #1 mission objective - IMHO - may very well be to lower public expectations concerning civilians in space.

That works counter to the trend though. The policy experts, both in the scientific community, and in the defense industry, are calling for an increase in skilled people for aerospace. They keep saying the same thing, "we need big missions to revitalize people's interest in these fields."

Big missions center around human involvement in space.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-04-23 09:45:15

Re: 3 criteria for 'Big' space missions - National Security, Economy, Expression o

#2 2003-04-23 10:07:48

Re: 3 criteria for 'Big' space missions - National Security, Economy, Expression o

#3 2003-04-23 12:30:05

Re: 3 criteria for 'Big' space missions - National Security, Economy, Expression o

#4 2003-04-23 14:55:59

Re: 3 criteria for 'Big' space missions - National Security, Economy, Expression o

#5 2003-04-23 15:15:07

Re: 3 criteria for 'Big' space missions - National Security, Economy, Expression o

#6 2003-04-23 15:59:06

Re: 3 criteria for 'Big' space missions - National Security, Economy, Expression o

#7 2003-04-24 07:42:11

Re: 3 criteria for 'Big' space missions - National Security, Economy, Expression o

#8 2003-04-24 09:33:31

Re: 3 criteria for 'Big' space missions - National Security, Economy, Expression o

#9 2003-04-25 07:48:22

Re: 3 criteria for 'Big' space missions - National Security, Economy, Expression o

#10 2003-04-25 08:56:18

Re: 3 criteria for 'Big' space missions - National Security, Economy, Expression o

Board footer