The safety engineers at NASA's Johnson Space Center invited me to speak to them this week about my post "What BP Can Learn from NASA." I spoke two days after the infamous well was finally, offically "bottom killed." Many in the audience knew a lot more about the situation than I do, since they are involved in the post-mortem investigation. I hope BP does learn from these savvy engineers, who have a lot to teach. After all, the NASA engineers learned much of it the hard way.
The audience listened attentively, but it was clear that they had other concerns. The weather was threatening, and it was still near the peak of hurricane season. Houston is still reeling from the evacuation influx from Katrina. Numerous billboards astride the interstate between Intercontinental airport and the Space Center remind Houstonians of their last chance to file claims from Ike.
JSC Director Michael Coats implored the safety engineers to be extra vigilant in the period of stress and uncertainty facing the center. Worried people are more prone to accidents, and with 1,800 layoffs looming between now and Christmas, JSC people have plenty to worry about. With worse than usual Washington budget bickering, Coats could not even offer his managers any guidance as to when their uncertainty might be resolved.
Michael Coats, Director, Johnson Space Center, former astronaut, NASA official portrait.
After my talk, I was treated to a VIP tour of the Space Center. I got to sit in some of the simulators where astronauts train and to see the live mission control centers for the shuttle and the International Space Station.
Apollo mission control in operation -- NASA photo
The emotional highlight for me was to go upstairs to the original Apollo mission control room, now preserved as a historical site. I sat in the chair where Chris Kraft and the crew of ground controllers agonized over the problems and celebrated the achievements. I saw the 1960-era switches and lights, dial telephones, pneumatic message tubes. I picked up a volume of laboriously detailed mission procedures. This is hallowed ground. It is as much a piece of American history as Boston's Old South Church, Constitution Hall, or the Gettysburg battlefield.
Unfortunately, Apollo mission control is on the third floor of a large, active building, in the middle of a secured campus. Perhaps someday NASA will be able to reconfigure the campus to make that building easy for the public to visit, and use the vast floor space that are computer rooms, conference rooms, and offices a definitive museum of the history of manned space exploration. Until then, hope you get offered a VIP tour.
JSC Director Coats spoke of the upcoming shuttle launch with more sadness than excitement. Before his career in industry and NASA senior management, he was an astronaut, logging three missions on the very shuttle now being prepped for its valendictory flight. He worries about the people whose jobs end with the mission.
The problems facing the manned space program are not the result of failure. Rather, they are the result of total success. President Kennedy committed America to be the first to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth. It was the height of the Cold War -- times now so distant that those of us old enough to have lived through them scarcely remember the existential angst of imminent thermonuclear annihilation or the epic confrontation of ideological systems. Most Americans alive today had not yet even been born. The goal was of strictly geopolitical consequence: beat the Soviet Union in space and demonstrate to the people of the world the merits of democracy and an open society over tyranny and oppression.
It worked. We won. The race was over.
The manned space program program morphed from superpower competition to global collaboration. Most going to and coming back from space depends on Russian equipment: with the last shuttle launches that will be the only ride available to anyone for some time. Even the Russians can't stay in space without American ground control. American engineers learned to appreciate the mathematical and metalurgical prowess of their former adversaries; former Soviet engineers came to appreciate the pervasive impact of computers. It is a true international effort -- just like sci-fi fans expected, all along. And it, too, is a huge, if less celebrated, success.
While science fiction did not anticipate geopolitical prestige as the motivation for man-in-space, it does suggest other motivations: "To seek out new life ..." as Star Trek puts it; for the human species to survive some future global catastrophe; or just because it's there. All are good reasons, but none provide a rationale for "act now" urgency. Nor do they provide a goal near enough to fashion a program around but large enough to inspire political support to sustain a budget for years or decades.
The competitive phase of the manned space program succeded in beating the Soviet Union. The cooperative phase succeeded in helping the former Soviet Union join the world. Now what?
The manned space program still has not recovered from success. But it is important to permanently and effectively memoralize that success. And figure out how to move on. Houston, we have a problem.
The author serves on the JPL oversight committee of the Caltech Board of Trustees. Caltech operates JPL under a management contract with NASA. The views expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of Caltech, JPL, or NASA.
Follow Dr. Philip Neches on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@pmneches
But it's the job of science leaders to push knowledge and data acquisition, and not so much to push the glory and excitement of national human adventure (robot advocates could just have robots climb mountains for them, or have robots instead of children!).
Ask your 111th Congressional representatives and party leaders what their role was in sacrificing our crewed spaceflight heritage to make way for space profiteers.
The solution to the problem that hit Houston: an URGENT & IMMEDIATE ADDENDUM with the new NASA bill restoring a solid, ongoing, anchored program for spaceflight, the powerful 2020's moon goal that will bring the real fulfillment of the work begun by all those who built and flew Apollo, the fulfillment we've all been awaiting for so long.
The 2020's lunarlab goal will stimulate our critically faltering education just as Apollo gave our nation's STEM levels a heavy surge, and, far more than ethereal flexible notions, it will give hope to our nation and our youth with every single beautiful moonrise.
Whether commercial/allies assisted or not, DEMAND YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES REINSERT THE 2020's MOON GOAL LANGUAGE NOW to help stop this destruction of one of America's most treasured trusts. The powerful Moon2020/LunarLab goal will put America to its' greatest heights.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/MD-11PCA/HTML/index.html
MD-11PCA index: MD-11 Propulsion Controlled Aircraft (PCA) Photo Gallery Contact Sheet
"...You're flying a large transport plane carrying hundreds of passengers and instantly you are unable to control the airplane - your controls system has gone out. As a pilot or a passenger, you hope that this scenario never presents itself, but if it did, what if there was a way to safely land the airplane by using throttles only?
With a system known as Propulsion Controlled Aircraft (PCA) not only is the concept a possibility, but it is a reality. By using a specially designed software system a successful flight test program at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center was accomplished.
The program's humble beginning came from a rough sketch on a TWA napkin that Dryden Engineer, Bill Burcham, drew on a flight to St. Louis for a McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA) meeting..."
This system was inspired by the United Flight 232 crash caused by loss of all hydraulic systems due to a failure of the number 2 engine.
I've heard this: "NASA returns 17 dollars to the economy for every dollar spent."
NASA also needs to publicize its spinoffs to get public support.
We've forgotten that the Apollo program provided good jobs for 400,000 people.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/moontomars/docs/MinutesAtlanta-3-24.pdf
I hinted at reasons why manned space travel remains a worthwhile activity. Perhaps in a future blog post, I will share my thoughts on what the manned space program should focus on in the near future.
Opinion: Greg Fish examines whether replacing astronauts with robots is a logical choice when exploring the cosmos.
http://news.discovery.com/space/greg-fish-humans-robots.html
"The problems facing... total success."
Er Apollo 1 fire, Challenger, Columbia. Ares-I (pending.) The management at NASA failed to learn from these failures and indeed were rewarded. It was this reward for failure that lead to the failure of NASP; CEV (X-38); X-33; DC-X;... and thence to the latest debacle: Cx.
It also led to the belief that there would always be funding for the next paper rocket.
"It worked. We won. The race was over."
Er The Space Race isn't over... not by a long chalk. And it's a marathon not a sprint. From a balanced and objective perspective I would say that the Russians are well ahead: more launches; new launch complex; two new rocket families; a new approved capsule; the only orbital space tourism business and international cooperation with India; S. Korea; ESA; China;...
Where is America's Moonbase?
Make that a Red Queen's Race.
"Even the Russians can't stay in space without American ground control."
Arrant nonsense. The only thing that the Russians need is the power from American Solar Arrays as per agreement. After Bush threatened to splash the ISS in 2015 (much to the disgust of the other IPs I may add) ...the Russians made contingency plans
"former Soviet engineers came to appreciate the pervasive impact of computers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoCom
ITAR??? Nuff said
"opression" has two 'p's
The fits and starts you refer to in the current incarnation of the manned space program seem to me to be symptoms of lack of agreement on over-arching goals. In the past, the goals came from national political consensus, not from within NASA. President Kennedy articulated a goal that galvanized the nation. Presidents since struggled to find a goal as clear and compelling.
Russia may have the technical means to carry on a unilateral manned space program. But, like us, they do not have the political motivation, and therefore cannot sustain the budget. They would rather continue international cooperation, with all of its inconveniences, than go it alone.
The Soviet and Russian educational systems produce some extremely proficient mathematicians. The Soviet arms and space programs used this in part to compensate for the lack of computational resources. It is not an accident that many of today's cyber-security concerns trace back to the former Soviet Union.
Thanks for pointing out the typo.
Putting aside how 'America' won WWII...
There was no national political concensus. Apollo was launched in the post Sputnik fear and only maintained by a grieving nation hanging on to a program so as to feel good about themselves. Especially as the truth in Vietnam was beginning to emerge.
Kennedy himself was not much interested in space and had suggested * that even then* the effort be internationalised.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/735/1
Another point to note is that Apollo only succeeded because the nation embarked on a communist style national program...
After Apollo 11, any concensus remaining: evaporated PDQ. And the new consensus: that the program be ended. ASAP. The shuttle interregnum and debacle ended American 'National' interest in space. And this disinterest remains to this day. Even amongst regulars on space fora, who should know better, the concensus seems to be that: post Apollo, America 'owns' space. Vide: the non ratification of the Moon Treaty to Bush 42's space policy. [1] And more especially that America somehow 'owns' the ISS.
This complacency of American/NASA space superiority is a second factor in the STS disasters and the reason why after five (?) failed attempts at a STS replacement, America is about to embark on another. IMHO the only reason why the 70 tonne (plus) SDHLV is being mandated by your Congress is because of the Russian's Angara.
Theirs is Modular yours is Monolithic.
"Presidents..."
Johnson (Dem.) had the "Great Society" as the previous one was seen to be failing...
Nixon (Rep.) Well let's skip over that sorry episode. Except to say, charitably, that only Nixon could go to China!
Ford (Rep.) & Carter (Dem): The Shuttle struggles into orbit and fails as a quick and cheap payload lifter. As America isn't really doing anything in space there is little point in speachifying.
Reagan (Rep.) Challenger. Shuttle now conclusively proved to be a failure as a quick, cheap *and safe* payload lifter. But now America was struggling in the 'Station Gap!' Hence his State of the Union Address in 1984. I find it ironic that the only way America could fulfil that Goal was to pay the Russians for an Astro on Mir!
GHW Bush (Rep.) SEI Nice Book. Shame about the funding.
Clinton (Dem.) Station, like the Shuttle, struggled on under the previous President. Until Clinton repurposed a Cold War vehicle into a exercise of international cooperation.
GW Bush (rep.) VSE Nice PPT. Shame about the funding. Columbia.
Conversely President Obama has laid out a real Vision [2] *and provided funding for it*. Alas because he's a... Democrat; the toxic backlash from the Right drowns out the former whilst sabotaging the latter.
Meanwhile Congress and SpacePork Inc carry on fiddling whilst Rome burns.
"all is for the worst in the worst of all possible worlds" (With apologies to Voltaire.)