50 years in space
TalkBack
E-mail
del.icio.us
Digg thisDo we need NASA?
Editors' note: This is part of a series examining 50 years of space exploration.
The birth of modern aviation probably lies in Charles Lindbergh's 1927 flight across the Atlantic, which won him a $25,000 prize and a ticker-tape parade down New York's Fifth Avenue.
By showing the world to be just a little smaller than before, Lindbergh fathered the 20th century's transportation revolution. The airship named after German entrepreneur Ferdinand von Zeppelin took its maiden flight the next year, and by the early 1930s both Boeing and Douglas were selling passenger planes to fledgling airlines including TWA, United and American. Not long afterward, the famous Douglas DC-3 made transcontinental flights practical.
Compare the rapid progress in aviation with America's experience in space travel. Fifty years after Sputnik 1's launch in October 1957, mankind has set foot on precisely one other world (a moon, at that), the space shuttle has at best a 1-in-50 chance of disaster upon each launch, and a completed space station is still a few years out. Since the last moon landing 35 years ago, in fact, mankind has not ventured beyond low Earth orbit again.
The difference? Critics say it's the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Aviation's youth and adolescence were marked by entrepreneurs and frenetic commercial activity: Lindbergh's trans-Atlantic prize money was put up by a New York hotel owner, and revenue from the airlines funded the development of the famous DC-3. The federal government aided aviation by paying private pilots to deliver air mail.
Space, by contrast, until recently has remained the domain of NASA. Burt Rutan, the aerospace engineer famous for building a suborbital rocket plane that won the Ansari X Prize, believes NASA is crowding out private efforts. "Taxpayer-funded NASA should only fund research and not development," Rutan said during a recent panel discussion at the California Institute of Technology. "When you spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build a manned spacecraft, you're...dumbing down a generation of new, young engineers (by saying), 'No, you can't take new approaches, you have to use this old technology.'"
Rutan and his fellow pilots, venture capitalists and entrepreneurs have undertaken a formidable task: To demonstrate to the public that space travel need not be synonymous with government programs. In fact, many of them say NASA has become more of a hindrance than a help.
News.com Poll
From moon landings to freight hauling
Soon after its creation in the 1950s, NASA captured the hearts of America's youth with vistas of outer space and other worlds, illustrated by unforgettable moments like Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon.
But by the late 1990s, the agency seemed to have become more moribund than innovative. In 1999 alone, NASA lost the Mars Climate Orbiter (because of English-Metric unit conversion problems) and Mars Polar Lander (likely because of a programming error). Then, after spending $1.6 billion on space plane research, NASA abruptly abandoned the project.
Late that year, NASA's problem-ridden Hubble Space Telescope was offline for more than a month. And NASA shuttle launches seemed to have devolved into repair missions and transportation for science experiments. Its mission, in other words, seemed to be shifting from historic accomplishments to the more matter-of-fact business of freight hauling.
The shuttle had become so problematic that Time Magazine published an article titled: "The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped." It dispassionately listed the shuttle's failings: It was intended to be an example of American technological prowess; instead it is fragile and antiquated (until recently the flight deck computers used 1978-vintage 8086 microprocessors). It was supposed to be flown every week; instead it flies a few times a year. It was supposed to cost $5 million a flight; instead it costs a staggering $1.3 billion a flight.
NASA leadership also discouraged private space travel. Then-administrator Dan Goldin publicly disparaged millionaire Dennis Tito's choice to pay a reported $20 million to fly to the space station on a Russian spacecraft, calling the former NASA scientist "un-American" for doing so. A few years earlier, though, NASA had flown a lawyer and insurance executive named Jake Garn and Bill Nelson--who had become influential members of the U.S. Congress--on space shuttle missions. Also during Goldin's tenure, NASA also took steps to block entrepreneurs at Russia's MirCorp from being able to use Russian supply rockets or gain access to a key tether that could have helped to keep Mir aloft.
But the Commercial Space Act of 1998 eliminated the long-standing prohibition on bringing vehicles and people back and forth from space and opened the door to what would become the commercial space industry of today. (Six years later, the federal government formally gave approval for Rutan's SpaceShipOne to launch a suborbital flight in pursuit of the X Prize.)
Peter Diamandis, chairman and CEO of the X Prize Foundation and a private space entrepreneur, says NASA can remain relevant--but only by focusing on what for-profit companies won't do. "NASA should be in focusing on breakthroughs in propulsion systems. They should be taking very high risks, funding things that are likely to fail because that's what government should be doing, pushing the envelope," he said in an interview with CNET News.com.
For its part, NASA says it's moving in that direction, pointing to policy directives including one from 2005 decreeing that the agency "will normally procure launch services for NASA and NASA-sponsored primary payloads from commercial providers."
"We're trying to get out of this low Earth orbit business," said Ken Davidian, program manager for NASA's Centennial Challenges program. "If there are commercial suppliers of space capabilities like launch vehicles for cargo delivery, we're required by law to use them. We want to use them. The premise is that those services will be cheaper to buy than to use ourselves."
Is NASA worth $17.6 billion next year?
But if private industry can reliably transport people and cargo to space, is it still necessary to funnel $17.6 billion a year to NASA? Or could that money be better spent on, say, tax breaks to encourage the development of a world-class private space industry?
"One way is to have a vibrant private sector model so people can see that space is a place, not a government program," said Ed Hudgins, executive director of the free-market-advocating Atlas Society and editor of the book Space: The Free-Market Frontier. "It's a place where you can do science, you can do work, you can explore, you can live. None of those functions are uniquely government functions."
Other free-market advocates call for a "phase out" of NASA, meaning privatization of the space station and enforcement of an existing restriction on not using the shuttle to carry cargo that can be handled by private launches. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, a largely autonomous part of NASA that's managed by the California Institute of Technology, could continue unmanned planetary probes, and so on.
That would reduce the risk of recurring budget overruns--which happened not just with the shuttle program, but the space station as well. It was originally supposed to cost $8 billion, have a crew of 12, and be complete by the mid-1990s; now it has a crew of three and is expected to cost at least $130 billion when it's finally finished in 2010.
Politically, though, NASA privatization isn't likely anytime soon. The Bush administration has asked for NASA's budget to be increased to $17.3 billion for the 2008 fiscal year, which the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives upped last month to $17.6 billion. Much of the extra money would be spent on the space station.
"We're going to be relevant in the things that commercial can't do--all the exploration stuff," said Davidian, the NASA program manager. "We're going to push the boundaries out and hopefully commercial industry will be back-filling...so NASA can keep pushing out further." Another area would be sending signals to the investment community, he added.
50 years in space
One change is that Michael Griffin, NASA's administrator since April 2005, seems less hostile to the private sector than his predecessor. In a speech last month, he recited NASA's current goals, including the Ares rockets and the Orion crew vehicle. Then he extended this olive branch: "This is the exploration work to be done over the next 10 to 15 years, and I hope to entice international and commercial partners to be part of turning these ideas into reality."
Instead of privatization, a more modest form of legislative tinkering might be tax incentives. One federal bill from 2005, the Zero Gravity, Zero Tax Act, would create a 25-year tax moratorium on profits derived from space manufacturing. A more radical proposal would create an X Prize-like corporate tax reward: the first company to erect a base on the moon (or Mars) would be immune from all taxes for the duration.
"Ideally I want to move to a world without NASA," said Hudgins, editor of the private space travel book. "For the same reason we don't have a world with the Western Settlements Bureau of the federal government. There's no need for one. The West has been settled, and it was mostly settled by private individuals getting out there through private means. The frontier is the model for becoming a space-faring civilization."
News.com's Stefanie Olsen contributed to this report
Stories
Day 1: Private industry moves to take over space race
The space race taking shape in the private sector today is due in large part to boyhood dreams of becoming astronauts.
Day 1: Space entrepreneur shoots for the moon
Space Adventures CEO Peter Diamandis talks about the future of private space travel to the moon and beyond.
Day 1: Key milestones in space exploration
A timeline of some of the events that brought humans into space and will guide where we go next.
Day 2: Silicon galaxy
Technologies developed by NASA have led to some of the most important commercial innovations to come out of Silicon Valley.
Day 2: The satellite age
The commercial satellite market has grown into a multibillion-dollar industry, but future growth could suffer.
Day 3: Do we need NASA?
Is NASA still worth spending more than $16 billion in taxpayer money each year?
Day 3: Designing a 21st-century space suit
MIT professor Dava Newman tells how the form-fitting BioSuit will help give NASA a ready-to-wear outfit for the moon and Mars.
Photo galleries
Memories from the space age
CNET News.com readers (and writers) share their memories from the early days of space exploration. October 5, 2007
Japan probe approaches moon
A new space race is getting under way, with as many as five nations expecting to land hardware on the moon within five years. October 4, 2007
Who's who in space travel
The private sector is laying the groundwork for a new era of space exploration. October 3, 2007
A half-century of space flight
We take a look at how the ships that enable space exploration are evolving. October 1, 2007
Strange visitors to other planets
The first Voyager spacecraft left Earth 30 years ago. Now, nearly 10 billion miles from home, they aren't finished yet.August 28, 2007
Building a better space suit
At MIT and the University of North Dakota, researchers are trying out new designs to clothe astronauts heading to Mars. July 18, 2007
Stellar views from the Hubble at 17
NASA and ESA celebrate the Hubble Space Telescope's anniversary with colliding stars and supernovas.April 25, 2007
Related stories
NASA pundits launch debate over space flight
Scientists ponder next 50 years of space exploration
SpaceShipOne's Rutan: Space resorts in 25 years
Cold War-era memories meet the future
NASA: Limited budget could lead to gap in manned missions
HEDGOESHERE -->News from around the Web
The race to space: Recalling Sputnik
The Baltimore Sun
Sputnik stunned the world, and its rocket scared the Pentagon
Wired
Science Times special coverage
New York Times
The next 50 years in space
Associated Content
Happy birthday, Sputnik! (Thanks for the Internet)
Computerworld
Thank Sputnik for today's orbital freedom
Christian Science Monitor
Credits
Editors: Jennifer Guevin, Jim Kerstetter
Design: Andrew Ballagh
Production: Madeleine Kempton
Stories
Day 1: Private industry moves to take over space race
The space race taking shape in the private sector today is due in large part to boyhood dreams of becoming astronauts.
Day 1: Space entrepreneur shoots for the moon
Space Adventures CEO Peter Diamandis talks about the future of private space travel to the moon and beyond.
Day 1: Key milestones in space exploration
A timeline of some of the events that brought humans into space and will guide where we go next.
Day 2: Silicon galaxy
Technologies developed by NASA have led to some of the most important commercial innovations to come out of Silicon Valley.
Day 2: The satellite age
The commercial satellite market has grown into a multibillion-dollar industry, but future growth could suffer.
Day 3: Do we need NASA?
Is NASA still worth spending more than $16 billion in taxpayer money each year?
Day 3: Designing a 21st-century space suit
MIT professor Dava Newman tells how the form-fitting BioSuit will help give NASA a ready-to-wear outfit for the moon and Mars.
Photo galleries
Memories from the space age
CNET News.com readers (and writers) share their memories from the early days of space exploration. October 5, 2007
Japan probe approaches moon
A new space race is getting under way, with as many as five nations expecting to land hardware on the moon within five years. October 4, 2007
Who's who in space travel
The private sector is laying the groundwork for a new era of space exploration. October 3, 2007
A half-century of space flight
We take a look at how the ships that enable space exploration are evolving. October 1, 2007
Strange visitors to other planets
The first Voyager spacecraft left Earth 30 years ago. Now, nearly 10 billion miles from home, they aren't finished yet.August 28, 2007
Building a better space suit
At MIT and the University of North Dakota, researchers are trying out new designs to clothe astronauts heading to Mars. July 18, 2007
Stellar views from the Hubble at 17
NASA and ESA celebrate the Hubble Space Telescope's anniversary with colliding stars and supernovas.April 25, 2007
Related stories
NASA pundits launch debate over space flight
Scientists ponder next 50 years of space exploration
SpaceShipOne's Rutan: Space resorts in 25 years
Cold War-era memories meet the future
NASA: Limited budget could lead to gap in manned missions
HEDGOESHERE -->News from around the Web
The race to space: Recalling Sputnik
The Baltimore Sun
Sputnik stunned the world, and its rocket scared the Pentagon
Wired
Science Times special coverage
New York Times
The next 50 years in space
Associated Content
Happy birthday, Sputnik! (Thanks for the Internet)
Computerworld
Thank Sputnik for today's orbital freedom
Christian Science Monitor
Credits
Editors: Jennifer Guevin, Jim Kerstetter
Design: Andrew Ballagh
Production: Madeleine Kempton
NASA may need to change becomming more intergarated and usful But without NASA a good amount of Drive would dissapaer which would be a great engineering loss.
One important reason Nasa should stay is that space colonisation and using the earth better as a resource are very similar pursutes.
This is an area which over the comming 50-100 i think will excel and could easily be worth a lot more than the investment into NASA allowing for even greater fuiture oppertunity for going to space but it will take time.
I hope some more peps add their view here as to the question of NASA because i feel it's a top question to ask and think about.
While the private sector can be as inventive as NASA. I think the motivation usually drives the research. NASA doesn't need to turn a profit. Thus they will research areas not profitable to the private sector.
So asking "Do we still need NASA?", is the same as asking do we still need Oxygen.
I am not against private enterprise, but lets remember that human greed is the worst human emotion of all and money greedy bastards need to be highly regulated and ultimately controlled by the government. Can you imagine what privatizing the Police and Fire Depts of this country would do to the general welfare?
We need a balance between the gov and private business, with the gov regulating.
And yes, I realize that's a matter of semantics. But still, I think their very name holds the key for NASA's future. Right now what we need most is not a socialized freight company or government organized lunar prospecting. What we need is an unbiased organization who can regulate space pollution, enforce safety standards, and coordinate R&D. Its great that NASA has spent so many years doing this work, but now they need to take that experience and channel it toward helping others do what they've done.
With rocketry, the margins for improvement are razor-thin. We are at the limits of efficiency for chemically-fueled rockets and, as such, improvements are won at frightening cost. This makes it almost impossible for private industry to take over NASA's role, the capital requirements are just too great given the current return on investment. Sure, it's possible to fly space tourists on sub-orbital flights lasting a few minutes, but this is not the stuff of which a space-faring society is built.
Like it or not, we need NASA. Now as for making NASA do a better job of it, well, that's a different kettle of fish.
Structural Analysis/CAD software (Buy a car lately?)
Modern enriched baby food, athletic shoes, scratch-resistant lenses, water purification systems, shock absorbing helmets, smoke detectors, dustbusters, flat panel displays, high density batteries, anti-fog ski goggles, sports bras (Yay!) quartz crystal timing equip.
Solar energy, improved weather forcasting, forest management, environmental control sensors, telemetry systems, fire resistant materials, radiation insulation, pollution measuring devices, air purification systems.
Programmable pacemakers, ocular screening, laser angioplasty, breast cancer detection, voice controlled wheelchairs, ultrasound scanners, insulin pumps, MRI.
Magnetic liquids, engine lubricants, microlasers.
Radiation detectors, emergency rescue cutters, SCBA for firemen, self righting life rafts, doppler radar, corrosion protection clothing.
Studless winter tires, better brakes, improved aircraft engines, advanced lubricants, improved school bus design.
There's a lot more! How about just for fun, we double NASA's budget (Still a tiny drop in the buckt...) I think if you look at it really hard, you'l realize that NASA has contributed more to healthcare, education, and environemental stewardship than ALL of the governement agencies designed specifically to support those very things, and we spend millions and billions MORE on those other, less capabable agencies.
1. The NASA of today is a contract management agency. The NASA of 1969 was an engineering agency.
2. For all of Rutan's considerable expertise and accomplishments, he remains a vain man who disparages the agency which provides the research. Ask Rutan how he plans to get into low Earth orbit or which agency is the source of research into composites, or how he plans to protect his tourist passengers from radiation exposure.
Space flight is expensive, risky and doesn't have a real commercial leg this side of payloads and maintenance. Putting tourists into suborbital ballistic shot flights is a stunt and a stunt that will eventually kill some of them. Systems fail at some probability and despite indemnity waivers, a legion of lawyers of the families of the wealthy passengers will step up to take the Virgin fortunes as well as Rutan's.
Do we need NASA? We need the NASA that was an engineering agency managed by the best engineers and not simply the best Beltway insiders. We need the NASA that prefabricated complex systems before giving industry the contracts to manufacture them as was done at Marshall Space Flight Center in the Sixties. We need teams that work together for a lifetime career with achievable but very hard goals.
We are going back to the Moon to stay. Why? It is the high ground and we cannot allow a global competitor to take that ground on unequal terms. One can argue the merits of the militarization of space in public, but in private it has always been the case. The Redstone, the Atlas and the Titan were not NASA boosters. They were short range and long range weapons systems carriers. The Saturn is the single instance of a purely civilian booster system and it was designed, prefabricated and managed by the former team from Peenemunde and Nordhausen led by Von Braun, Stuhlinger and Rudolph. Experience and team coherence are vital to the long range work required.
You will not get that from a one-off competition among low cost bidders. You have to grow that and it takes years. Rutan has a team and he now has deaths among his team. Welcome to the space program, Burt.
Today, the commercial sector has the tools they need to go to space, and do things that will make them a profit, namely, space manufacturing, and R&D on profitable products, taking advantage of vacuum, microgravity and extreme temperatures that are best accessed in space.
Expecting the government to do all of our work is ridiculous. If we want something useful to come of space, WE need to do the work. (It should be noted that, though NASA inspired most of the products listed above, most of them were actually developed by contractors... commercial interests... not NASA itself.)
I agree with the suggestion that NASA should be the administrator of space activities. But it's time for the commercial sector to step up and enter the new territories, to make their fortunes on their own work, the same way they followed Lewis and Clark and developed the west.
Food, medical, and shelter for all first.
Besides NASA is simply part of the US out-of-control spending military. Condisering all branches of service, all intellegence agencies, foreign military bases (730+ and counting) The U.S. TOPS ONE TRILLION dollars a year.
American's are solid stoned. What other nation is so imperialistic and so militarily obsessed. I learned when I was 5 it was better to solve problems with words not clubs.
NASA is the space branch of the U.S. military. Wake up to the real priorities America! A proiority is not taking a close look at Pluto. That is just a waste.
A priority is providing insurance for children that have none.
To all those out there who say "we need to keep exploring and thus we go to space:" Let's start by exploring our own planet first with our $17 billion, where the scientific findings are more relevant.
things as I'm seeing in the commentaries, much less that Cnet
chose to publish such a bone-head piece in the first place.
Never mind the future of humanity, the spirit of exploration, the
possibilities of off-earth resources . . . you guys wouldn't
understand the arguments anyway. So I'll keep it simple for you:
You may think: cut the $17bil from NASA, and we can educate
kids, or feed the hungry, or house the homeless! Yeah, right . . .
which planet did you say you live on???
Here's where that $17bil might ACTUALLY go, in order of
probability:
- 2 months of Iraq war!
- tax breaks for already-bloated-with-profit corporations
- tax breaks for the wealthy
- bridges to nowhere islands off Alaska
- paying off some of the Bush/Iraq national debt.
Yeah, sure, any of those things would be better ways to spend
the money . . . whatever.
its time to break up NASA. when kids find xbox and iphone more exciting that anything nasa is contemplating, we know that we have the wrong plan for the future.
DUH! We American's as a nation are growing more stupid by the minute.
Yeah, but it so important to understand that glimmer of light that happened 200 billion years ago.
STUPID NASA
Those that support NASA need a drug rehab clinic.
Medical reasons ? we are finding that we can work in many medical facets in order to slow down the production of cancer and other physical and genetic ailments.
I am not sure that the public realizes how much research NASA is truly involved in when it comes to our national defense systems, storm tracking, geological sciences, cosmic scientific solutions, expanded communications and so on.
Not only does NASA work with the human sciences but as well with the agricultural sciences. Yes?it is A LOT of money being spent but I do think that we need to take another look at things when are taxes go towards the presidential security, over-expenses being paid out for hotel, travel, car rental, boat/yacht rentals. Let?s not get into or attack other government related fundings as well or should we?
Also, I wonder what makes the people of this country think that just because we cancel the NASA program that the money currently being spent on them will not be routed to another government agency or program that is definitely of less importance.
Getting rid of NASA will be one of the other biggest mistakes that this country can make.
It also inspires many of the dreamers of new technologies like myself.
After all, I'd like to see my product on the Space Shuttle, space station, or Mars Ship as we discussed in Florida.
:-)
- KMAMA! dump the DHS before NASA
- by gurfrip October 3, 2007 9:53 AM PDT
- Kiss My Assets Merry Assetholders!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (116 Comments)The Federal Government is pouring billions into a hole in the ground in NY and they want to stop space exploration so we can have a bunch of DHS employees guarding the door guards, the cops and the secret service at the Waldorf?
Good lord, every boom cycle brings forward a bunch of dunces in management ranks and the IQ differential is getting way out of whack. Give up NASA, hey why don't we all just cut off our own heads! and stop thinking completely!
Another idea by a bunch of some really dumb Bankers that think Google is technology.